Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL

Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to Order [26th July], and agreed to.

COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendment.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I beg to move,
That the several Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in Schedule (A) be made, that the Standing Order hereinafter stated in Schedule (B) be repealed, and that the new Standing Order relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in Schedule (C) be made:

SCHEDULE (A)—AMENDMENTS TO STANDING ORDERS

Standing Order 4, line 1, leave out from beginning, to "a," and insert "Whenever an application is intended to be made to bring in."

Standing Order 39, line 27, leave out "Southern Rhodesia," and insert "the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland."

Standing Order 64, line 24, after "acquisition," insert "by."
Line 25, leave out "by or.

Standing Order 67, line 38, after "acquisition," insert "by."
Line 38, leave out "by or.

Standing Order 99, line 1, leave out "conservancy," and insert "river board."

Standing Order 162, line 2, leave out "gas or."

Standing Order 190, line 4, after first "the," insert "short."

Standing Order 220, line 69, at end, insert—
(h) notice of the day proposed for the second reading of the bill shall not be given for a day later than the seventh day after that on which the bill has been ordered to be read a second time; provided that when the House has resolved to adjourn to a day beyond the seventh day, notice may be given for the day to which the House has adjourned or the following day.

Standing Order 224, line 6, leave out from "shall," to "whether," in line 9, and insert "decide whether or not the Bill is of such a nature that Standing Orders 4 to 68 should apply to it and if he decides that those Standing Orders should so apply he shall report to the House."

Standing Order 237, line 28, leave out from "person," to second "on," in line 29.

Standing Order 238, line 9, leave out "ten," and insert "eleven."

Standing Order 239, line 21, leave out paragraph (2), and add—
(2) The name and address of the applicant, if any, shall be endorsed on any order so laid and on all copies of the order so deposited and made available.

Standing Order 240, line 26, leave out "specified on the face of," and insert "endorsed on."

Standing Order 243, line 29, leave out "specified on the face of," and insert "endorsed on."

Standing Order 244, line 54, leave out "specified on the face of," and insert "endorsed on."

SCHEDULE (B)—REPEAL OF A STANDING ORDER

Standing Order 239A (Deposit of duplicate plans, &c., in the Private Bill Office).

SCHEDULE (C)—NEW STANDING ORDER

Deposit of duplicate plans, &amp;c., in Private Bill Office

239A. If under a special procedure order it is proposed to authorise the compulsory acquisition or use of land, or if the order relates to any works or to any area of land or water, and the said works or area are described by reference to a map or plan, a copy of a map or plan of the said land or works or area shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office on the day on which the order is laid before this House.

The object of these Amendments is to clarify the Standing Orders relating to Private Business, and in some cases to bring them up to date. In particular, the new Standing Order 239A improves upon the repealed Standing Order 239A in that it ensures that, wherever necessary, maps or plans illustrating Special Procedure Orders shall be available for the use of Members from the day on which such an Order is laid before the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUEZ CANAL ZONE BASE (ANGLO-EGYPTIAN AGREEMENT)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the resumption of negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government over the Canal Zone.

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to make a further statement about the negotiations with Egypt over the future of the Suez Canal Base, with particular reference to the use of civilian contractors.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in the position to make a statement on the progress of the talks between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic of Egypt on the evacuation of British troops from the Suez Canal Zone.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will reply to these Questions at the end of Questions.

Mr. Shinwell: Pending the statement which the right hon. Gentleman is going to make in answering these Questions, and while I have no desire to prevent either my right hon. and learned Friend or my hon. Friend from putting any questions themselves, this point has occurred to me. Will the right hon. Gentleman, in making his statement to the House this afternoon, refer to the possibility of the resumption of the export of arms to Egypt in the meantime; and, secondly, will he say anything about the negotiations on the subject of Egyptian intervention with shipping in the Suez Canal?

Mr. Eden: My statement will deal with the actual agreement, and I think the House will be willing to wait for that announcement. It is a quite normal and courteous way of replying to Questions by such an announcement.

Mr. Shinwell: That is all very well, but the right hon. Gentleman has indicated

that he is not going to say anything about these two matters, although they are indicated in the Questions on the Order Paper.

Mr. Eden: I have only told the House that I will make a statement at the end of Questions. It seems to me the normal and courteous way of proceeding to answer hon. Members' Questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (RE-ARMAMENT)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what official discussions he had with the Soviet Foreign Minister at Geneva regarding Germany and European security.

Mr. Anthony Eden: None, Sir.

Mr. Warbey: As peaceful co-existence is now the policy of the Government, and as this new policy was so successful at Geneva, would not the right hon. Gentleman apply it to the next problem—Germany—and take advantage of the tentative suggestions put forward in the new Soviet Note to propose a four-Power conference on Germany?

Mr. Eden: I think that if the hon. Gentleman reads the Soviet Note he will find out that that is what they suggest.

Mr. Warbey: I was not suggesting that. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was suggesting that he should follow up these tentative suggestions and might himself suggest a four-Power conference?

Mr. Eden: Thank you very much.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a detailed statement on the Government's proposals for according sovereignty to Western Germany.

Mr. Anthony Eden: I have nothing to add to the Prime Minister's reply to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Warbey: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister left this matter in complete obscurity? Can he now answer at least one question and say how the Bonn Conventions are to be brought into effect and separated from E.D.C. without legalising the uncontrolled rearmament of Western Germany?

Mr. Eden: There are methods by which that can be done, but I do not know that I should enter into them at this moment.

Mr. Warbey: Does not the whole House desire to know exactly how this matter can be dealt with?

Mr. Eden: The Question is about the sovereignty of Western Germany, but it is clear that arrangements can be made covering rearmament if it was so agreed and desired.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH-EAST ASIA

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs his proposals, following the successful conclusion of the Geneva Conference, for economic aid to the countries of South-East Asia.

Mr. Anthony Eden: The existing arrangements for economic aid to the countries of South-East Asia will continue. No decision has yet been taken as to what additional measures will be necessary or possible.

Mr. Warbey: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the additional measures are under discussion, because the present paltry assistance under the Colombo Plan is quite inadequate to provide an effective counter to the Communist challenge in South-East Asia? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Burma Prime Minister said recently that he is not afraid of the Communists because he has a better programme than the Communists?

Mr. Eden: I am very conscious of the economic aspects of this problem, and certain discussions are going on, but I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's description of the Colombo Plan.

Mr. Smithers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the new countries of South-East Asia, such as Indonesia, which are trying to build up their own independence, such economic aid is welcomed?

Mr. Eden: We shall do what we can in all these matters.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the Government can support with an ample contribution the work in Southern Viet-Nam, similar to that which has been done in Korea by the United Nations?

Mr. Eden: I would like to consider that suggestion.

Sir R. Acland: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the improved situation in South-East Asia, he will communicate with the relevant authorities at the United Nations revising Her Majesty's Government's attitude to the Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development and announcing Britain's willingness to participate financially without waiting for the realisation of an agreed scheme of internationally supervised disarmament.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker): No, Sir. The position is still as indicated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State in his reply to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock) on 2nd June.

Sir R. Acland: Do not the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary feel that we might have obtained even better terms in South-East Asia if this fund had been in operation four years ago and we now had behind us the enthusiasm in the people there for the sort of work it would have been doing? Is it not rather foolish to deny ourselves the advantages which this fund can give by allowing the Russians the power to veto it?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: No, Sir.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Would the hon. Gentleman consider the rather valuable suggestion of the United Nations Association on this matter, that even if we can get the full support of America we should start it on a more limited basis?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Undoubtedly we shall look at that sort of point in due course.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Under-Secretary of State undertake to ensure that the Government will consider again before September whether, in view of the changes in the course of events in South-East Asia and elsewhere, it is not very urgent to keep this fund on its feet?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the original reply of the Minister of State to which I have referred, he will see that it is clear that Her Majesty's Government did not envisage being in a position to contribute


to such a fund until resources became available, and I cannot see that happening before September.

Sir R. Acland: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not enter into any commitments or make any expressions of intention which might lead to military action in South-East Asia without first making a thorough examination of the proposals for a general settlement which are now being put forward by the Chinese Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Anthony Eden: I am not aware of any such proposals. The policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of South-East Asian security has been clearly stated to this House.

Sir R. Acland: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that we shall not enter into expressions of intention or other informal arrangements, very similar to those which we had with France in 1913–14, which are quite capable of leading to military operations, without first exploring alternative possibilities?

Mr. Eden: I have fully explained our policy to the House, and I think it is well known.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOURIST TRAVEL (PASSPORTS)

Mr. John Eden: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position with regard to the official proposals from France and Belgium that Great Britain should join with them in abolishing passports for day and weekend visitors; and whether, in view of the desirability of further developing tourist travel, he will agree to this relaxation.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Her Majesty's Government have received no such proposals from the Belgian Government. The French Government have made several approaches with a view to a resumption of the pre-war practice. Their proposals have been carefully considered, but on 31st December, 1953, the French Ambassador was informed that Her Majesty's Government had with great regret come to the

conclusion that they could not agree to the re-establishment of the pre-war facilities.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS (REFUGEES)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Her Majesty's Government refused to support the plan recently submitted to the United Nations Economic and Social Council by Dr. van Heuven Goedhart, the High Commissioner for Refugees.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Because Dr. Goedhart's proposal assumes international responsibility for the economic integration of refugees. This, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, is essentially a matter for the Governments of their country of residence.

Mr. Fernyhough: Will not Her Majesty's Government reconsider this matter? Does not the Minister realise that this is one of the most human problems left as a result of the recent war, and does he not feel that there is a moral obligation to these people?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: This country has been second only to the United States in helping refugees since the war. This is not a new policy. It dates from the handing over of the care-and-maintenance responsibility of the Refugee Organisation in 1950 to the Governments of the countries responsible.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE WITH CHINA

Mr. Jay: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the agreements reached at Geneva on 20th July, he will make a statement about the relaxation of restrictions on trade between the United Kingdom and China.

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now, following the truce settlement in Indo-China, propose in the United Nations that the special embargo imposed on trade with China in May, 1951, be rescinded, and that exports to China be subject only to the same strategic restrictions as are in force in respect of shipments to Eastern Europe.

Mr. Anthony Eden: As the right hon. Gentlemen are aware, a Chinese trade


mission recently visited the United Kingdom and a British trade mission is to visit China. These talks cover all trade outside the strategic embargo. As for goods falling within the embargo, these are a matter for international decision, and I have no statement to make on that at the moment.

Mr. Jay: As this embargo was originally imposed on account of the Korean War, and as the cease-fire has been achieved both in Korea and Indonesia, thanks partly to the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman, will the United Kingdom Government not now take some initiative in the United Nations to get relaxation?

Mr. Eden: These are questions which range far beyond the view of Her Majesty's Government. They are connected with the possibility of a Korean settlement. I would not be able to add anything to what I have said this afternoon.

Mr. P. Roberts: Is it not a fact that the Chinese trade mission over here seems to be wishing to acquire large quantities of steel and other strategic materials? So long as we have no evidence of peaceful co-existence with that country will my right hon. Friend watch the situation very carefully?

Mr. Eden: It is natural that countries should wish to acquire things on the embargo list. I was dealing with our position which, as my hon. Friend will be aware, is covered by what I have said.

Mr. S. Silverman: In view of the fact that the somewhat comparable problem of the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc in Europe has been the subject of fairly successful international consultation resulting in an easing of, at any rate, some of the restrictions, would not the right hon. Gentleman think the time is now opportune for negotiating international discussions of the same kind to lead to something like the same result?

Mr. Eden: I do not wish to be enticed beyond what I have already said.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAUDI ARABIAN FRONTIER DISPUTE (ARBITRATION)

Mr. E. Wakefield: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to make a statement about

the negotiations with the Saudi Arabian Government regarding the frontier dispute on the Trucial Coast.

Mr. Anthony Eden: Yes, Sir. I am glad to be able to report to the House that we have now reached agreement in principle with the Saudi Government regarding the terms on which the frontier dispute on the Trucial Coast shall be put to arbitration. The Arbitral Tribunal will consist of five members, of whom one will be nominated by Her Majesty's Government acting on behalf of the Sultan of Muscat and the Ruler of Abu Dhabi, and one by the Saudi Government: these two will then choose three neutrals. This Tribunal will be asked to determine the common frontier between Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi, and sovereignty over the Buraimi zone.
The Saudi official, Turki, and his party is to be withdrawn to Saudi Arabia, and we on our side shall withdraw the posts which we put out after his appearance in the oasis. Each side will then contribute 15 men to a police group which will be stationed in the oasis to maintain law and order during arbitration.
As for oil operations, the disputed areas are to be divided into two parts, separated by a neutral zone. In the northern part our companies will continue their operations, and in the southern the Arabian American Oil Company will be free to prospect. This, of course, will be without prejudice to the claims of the parties at arbitration.
The arbitration proceedings will take time. But I am sure that the House will share my satisfaction that it is now possible to go forward to a solution of this long dispute, and to the full restoration of our traditionally friendly relations with Saudi Arabia.

Mr. Wakefield: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the war those who, like myself, represented the British Government in the Persian Gulf, received the most generous co-operation from His late Majesty Ibn Saud? Is he further aware of the gratification which all of us who are interested in the restoration of good will between ourselves and the Saudi Arabian Government feel at the announcement that my right hon. Friend has made?

Mr. Stokes: In arriving at these arrangements have steps been taken


definitely to see to it that the cost of the oil which will be under British influence will be so adjusted as to conform to the cost of production instead of conforming to the American wish to keep the price up according to the cost of production in their own country?

Mr. Eden: The agreement provides for our oil companies to continue their operations. It also safeguards the interests of the rulers. I do not think we have got beyond that stage at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA (OCCUPYING POWERS)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has sent to the request made by the Austrian Government for a meeting with occupying Powers to discuss ways of alleviating the burdens of occupation.

Mr. Anthony Eden: No reply has yet been sent, but the Austrian proposal is being sympathetically considered.

Mr. Davies: While thanking the Foreign Secretary for that reply, may I ask him whether, if this meeting takes place, he will draw once more the attention of the Soviet Union to the fact that no obstacles stand in the way of the Austrian Treaty being concluded, and that in that way the burden of occupation can be finally concluded?

Mr. Eden: I shall be glad to pass on the hon. Gentleman's wise comments.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY (NEGOTIATIONS)

Mr. Morley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements have been made for compensation to British nationals of the overseas staff of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Limited formerly employed in Persia.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Negotiations in Teheran are concerned with compensation to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Any compensation to members of the staff is a separate issue for which my right hon. Friend has no responsibility.

Mr. Morley: Can the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend use his influence to see that members of the staff who lost very

good jobs when the oil company withdrew from Persia, and who now have very badly paid jobs, get some share of this compensation which is to be given to the company?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I think that the hon. Gentleman should address his inquiries to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is responsible for that aspect of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

Mr. T. Williams: Could not the hon. Gentleman give the House some idea of how many of the employees are really the employees of the Government?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-ARGENTINE TRAMWAYS (BRITISH SHAREHOLDERS)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that in the present negotiations with the Argentine it will continue to be made clear to them that Her Majesty's Government views with displeasure the manner in which British shareholders of the Anglo-Argentine Tramways have been treated over the years and that they still look to the Argentine Government for eventual compensation.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEIPZIG KIRCHENTAG (BRITISH REPRESENTATIVES)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the reasons why a number of representatives of British churches were unable, through the action of British officials in Germany, to attend the recent Kirchentag in Leipzig.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The hon. Member is misinformed. The only applications to British officials in Germany of which I am aware were those of 11 persons who applied quite correctly through the British member of the Interzonal Facilities Bureau. All these applications were transmitted to the Soviet Visa Office in Berlin within two days of their receipt, and daily reminders were also sent. On 1st July the Soviet Visa Office approved


two of them and the two successful applicants were so informed. As the Soviet authorities still gave no answer about the other applicants, it was not possible to inform them whether their applications had been successful.

Mr. Driberg: Has the hon. Gentleman studied the comment and report from a responsible Free Church newspaper which I sent to him, and will he say what factual errors, if any, there are in that comment?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I cannot go into detail at the moment, but the comment was based on misinformation, and I have given the House the correct information.

Mr. Driberg: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the persons who applied through the British authorities were not able to get there in time, whereas those who applied direct were?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: That is not the fault of the British authorities, as I have made clear in my answer.

Mr. P. Roberts: Will my hon. Friend take note of the fact that it is rather typical of certain sections of the Opposition to try to blame British Government officials when usually it is the Communists who are at fault?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: We see that too often.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF FOOD

Flour Improvers (Agene)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Food if he can yet make a statement in respect of the banning of agene in flour for human consumption.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): Not yet, Sir.

Mr. Dodds: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that an undertaking was given by a Government spokesman on 2nd December, 1953, that a statement was likely to be made within two or three months, and is he not aware that for some considerable period a baker in the West Country has been selling large quantities of bread free from agene and chemicals? What is the Ministry doing about that?

Dr. Hill: I am aware of the need for an early decision. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are in the hands of an expert committee which is seeking an absolutely safe alternative. My right hon. and gallant Friend will make an announcement as soon as that expert advice is ready.

Mr. Stokes: Why does not the Minister's Department encourage the millers to give people decent bread instead of the poison which they now supply?

Dr. Hill: Because he prefers an expert examination of the facts before making loose assertions.

Mr. Dodds: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that in the new process, which has been going on as a commercial proposition, no chemicals at all are used? Is it not a good bread in itself, and why does not the Ministry do something about it? If it is not a good bread, why does not the Ministry warn people about it?

Dr. Hill: I am aware of the aeration process to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It is one of the methods being studied, but, until the study is complete, it cannot be authoritatively stated what the new method will be.

Bacon Pigs (Guaranteed Prices)

Mr. Holt: asked the Minister of Food if he will withdraw the guaranteed prices for bacon pigs until a free market is restored between the farmer and the bacon curers.

Dr. Hill: No, Sir. The guaranteed prices are paid to implement an undertaking to producers. The method of sale does not affect their purpose or necessity.

Mr. Holt: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he and his right hon. and gallant Friend are really very happy about the present arrangements which have been in force since 1st July? Will he say to what extent there is a monopoly as a result of the agreement between the Fat Stock Marketing Corporation and the bacon curers, and how many bacon curers are now outside that agreement?

Dr. Hill: My right hon. Friend's responsibility is to implement the guarantee, whether to the individual producer or to producers formed together in a voluntary organisation like the Fat Stock


Marketing Corporation. The issue which the hon. Gentleman has in mind is not the concern of my right hon. Friend, and it might appropriately be put to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Bullard: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, in the matter of the production of bacon pigs, in which quality and uniformity are all important, it is very desirable that these pigs should be sold through a marketing organisation rather than by the method of auction sales?

Dr. Hill: Yes, Sir.

Canadian Apples

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Food what arrangements are being made to allow imports of Canadian apples during the forthcoming season to meet the consumers' needs after the home-grown crop has been disposed of; to what extent this trade may be resumed; and what consultations he has had with Canadian interests to ensure that the domestic market may depend upon an adequate and varied supply of fresh fruit from North America.

Dr. Hill: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply I gave on 26th July to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Commander Donaldson).

Mr. Hughes: Cannot the Minister be a little more explicit, and cannot he give the housewives a little more variety in the matter of food supplies?

Dr. Hill: I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman reads the answer to which I referred, which makes this, as it essentially is, a question of dollars.

Eggs

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that eggs have increased in price from 2s. 6d. to 4s. 9d. per dozen; what evidence he has to indicate the future price trends; and what his policy is in regard to egg production and price.

Dr. Hill: The price of eggs always rises at this time of the year, and no doubt this annual pattern will continue. But the price is appreciably lower than a year ago and lower than under control and subsidy the year before.

Mrs. Mann: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why his right hon. and gallant Friend made a statement in the House a week ago saying that eggs had fallen in price when, in point of fact, they have nearly doubled in price from 2s. 6d. to 4s. 9d.? Is the latter part of my Question too difficult for the hon. Gentleman to answer?

Dr. Hill: The price always rises between the flush period and midsummer. The point of comparison is between that time this year and the same time last year, and the comparison shows a reduction in price.

Sir W. Smithers: On the more general question, will the Ministry make it clear to the public that controls are the cause of shortages, that the restriction of consumption restricts production, and that it must take time for the application of sound principles to show results after the inefficiency and incompetence of the Socialist regime?

Fatstock (Grading and Deadweight Scheme)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food if he will make a statement on the operation of his Department's fatstock grade and deadweight scheme during the first three weeks of meat decontrol; if he is satisfied that generally the supply of home-killed meat and the demand are settling on a basis that is fair to producers and consumers; and if he can give a current estimate of the subsidy payments on account of the collective guaranteed payments and the guaranteed individual prices.

Dr. Hill: There are now official graders at 166 centres and some 160 wholesalers are registered under the scheme. The answer to the second part of the Question within the limits of experience to date is, "Yes, Sir." As regards the third part, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Departmental Estimates which included £34·7 million for the nine months ending next March.

Mr. Hurd: Will my hon. Friend tell us whether an increasing number of farmers are making use of the Ministry's grading and deadweight scheme as an alternative to the auctions or the Fat Stock Marketing Corporation?

Dr. Hill: It is a little early, after only three weeks, to measure trends of that kind.

Bacon and Ham

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that Belfast bacon has been increased to 6s. per lb., and cooked gammon from 7s. 4d. to 9s. per lb., while alternatives to these, such as sausages, meat and fish, are correspondingly increased; and if he will reimpose controls.

Dr. Hill: I am not so informed. The average price of bacon is about the same as before decontrol, and from this weekend there will be bacon in some districts at much lower prices. The reply to the last part of the Question is: No, Sir.

Mrs. Mann: I am not at all surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not informed. As a matter of fact, is he aware that when he asks housewives to take action by avoiding high prices the alternatives to which they have to resort are also all correspondingly increased?

Dr. Hill: But the statements in the hon. Lady's Question are inaccurate. For example, she refers to cooked gammon, where the range of price is between 7s. 4d. and 8s. per lb. as compared with between 11s. and 12s. under the Administration of the party opposite. Secondly, the Index of Retail Food Prices shows that the figure for June is no higher than it was a year ago.

Mr. Fernyhough: In view of the high cost of living, will the hon. Gentleman admit that the time has come when the British people should be sold Danish bacon at the price which the Government pays for it, and not be exploited by the Government to the tune of £30 million a year as they are at the present time?

Dr. Hill: If the hon. Gentleman would put down a Question on Danish bacon I shall be glad to answer it.

Mr. Gower: Is it not a fact that, unfortunately, some people are grossly exaggerating increases in the cost of living?

Dr. Hill: Some people are denying, for political purposes, the validity of the figures which they themselves used.

Butter

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Food the price of butter in June, 1951, and June, 1954.

Dr. Hill: 2s. 6d.; and from 3s. 8d. to 4s. 2d. per lb.

Mrs. Mann: We have just had a reply that butter was 2s. 6d. a lb. in 1951, and that it is now costing from 3s. 8d. to 4s. 2d. a lb. Surely that gives the lie to all that hon. Members opposite have been saying about there being no increases. Are we to take it that when butter goes from 2s. 6d. a lb. to 4s. 2d. it is a reduction?

Dr. Hill: But that is an element in the cost-of-living index.

CYPRUS

Port Development

Sir F. Graham: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the policy of Her Majesty's Government about creating a new port in Cyprus; and where this is likely to be situated.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): My right hon. Friend fully appreciates the importance of port development in Cyprus and, at the request of the Government of Cyprus, advisers from the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation are undertaking a survey of the flow of trade through the ports in the island. They will advise the Cyprus Government what developments, if any, are desirable. It is therefore too early to reply to the second part of the Question.

Mr. Driberg: When conducting the survey, will the Government pay special attention to the fact that there are in Cyprus a large number of historic buildings of unexampled beauty and interest, and will they take care to see that so far as possible nothing is done to spoil these ancient buildings?

Mr. Hopkinson: Yes, Sir. I can certainly give that assurance.

Captain Ryder: Will the Minister bear in mind that the decision to proceed with the deep water port at Cyprus will not only bring great benefit to the Colony, but will also be a clear indication to our


friends there that our interest in the Colony is an abiding one and not merely a passing one?

Mr. Hopkinson: Yes. At the same time I think that we must await the report of the committee of inquiry.

Enosis Movement

Mrs. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what he estimates to be the volume of support in Cyprus for the Enosis Movement; and what measurable opposition there is to it among the people of the island.

Mr. Hopkinson: I understand that there are many shades of opinion. The movement is certainly widely supported in the Press and from the pulpit, but there is strong opposition from a not inconsiderable part of the population of the island.

Mrs. Jeger: Would the Minister not agree that it might be possible to get a definite answer to this question if the Government would consider holding a referendum of their own?

Mr. Hopkinson: The holding of a referendum or a plebiscite is not a piece of political machinery which fits in very well with British ideas, but in any case I would ask the hon. Lady to await the statement which I propose to make at the end of Questions.

Mr. Wyatt: Would the Minister say whether the Government, if they are going to return to the Front Bench, are going to give some attention to the problem of Cyprus and not wait until it explodes in their hands like the Suez Canal base and then have to go out of the Chamber again?

Mr. Hopkinson: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the very last answer which I gave, he would have heard me say I was going to make a statement at the end of Questions.

HONG KONG (HEALTHY VILLAGE)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) what rents will be charged by the Hong Kong Housing Society for the flats they are proposing to build on the site of the Healthy Village; what are the qualifications necessary for renting these flats;

and what compensation will be paid to the present inhabitants of the Healthy Village who have to demolish their houses;
(2) how many of the occupants of the Healthy Village who will not be rehoused by the Hong Kong Housing Society will be allowed to remain on that part of the site which is not needed by the Society.

Mr. Hopkinson: I am consulting the Acting Governor, and will write to the hon. Member when I have his reply.

Mr. Rankin: In the meantime, would not the Minister do something to try to get another site secured for the Hong Kong Housing Society? Would he not agree that it is a bad thing to interfere with this excellent little community?

Mr. Hopkinson: I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given on a previous occasion which, I think, made the position perfectly clear.

MAKERERE COLLEGE, UGANDA (EXTRA-MURAL STUDIES)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Director of Extra-Mural Studies for the University College of East Africa has not been appointed; and what the University College authorities are doing with the money.

Mr. Hopkinson: As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) in reply to a Question on 23rd June, the University College of East Africa at Makerere is an autonomous body. This is therefore a matter for the college authorities.

Mr. Rankin: I quite appreciate that fact, but surely the Minister can do something in this matter, because he is aware, I think, that this post was advertised over a year ago. As this extra-mural work is proceeding quite satisfactorily at Entebbe, is there any reason why it should not proceed now in Kenya and Tanganyika?

Mr. Hopkinson: I think that my right hon. Friend in his reply to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) on 23rd June, made quite clear what his interest was in this matter of extra-mural work.


He made his interest perfectly clear, but it would not be proper for him to intervene in a matter of this sort.

Mr. J. Johnson: Would the Minister agree that one of our big difficulties in colonial society is a lack of what we may call cultural activity, particularly in East Africa of all places? Would he therefore do his best to indicate to the university in the territory that it ought to begin, and should begin as early as possible, some extra-mural classes in Nairobi?

Mr. Hopkinson: With respect, I think that the answers given on this subject will help in that direction.

Mr. Rankin: Will the Minister make it clear that this extra-mural work has his complete support, and say so to both the Governments concerned?

Mr. Hopkinson: indicated assent.

NIGERIA (MOKWA AGRICULTURAL SCHEME)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will hold an inquiry into the methods of working of the Mokwa agricultural scheme in Nigeria, and the factors which led to its failure.

Mr. Hopkinson: This scheme has been taken over by the Government of the Northern Region of Nigeria on 1st June for further experimental work. My right hon. Friend sees no grounds for an inquiry at this stage.

Mr. Johnson: Can the Minister confirm or deny that much of the difficulty in the past has been caused by the attitude of the local Emir who almost seems to wish to discourage these settlers coming into this scheme? Would he endeavour to convey to the Northern Territory Government that this sort of thing has not been helpful in the past and will not be helpful in the future?

Mr. Hopkinson: I have not the information to confirm what the hon. Gentleman says, but certainly the scheme has been taken over by the Northern Regional Government. They have asked for a C.D. and W. grant to help to carry it out, and it is certainly their intention to make a success of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA

Constitution

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how he proposes to review the Malayan Federation agreement in view of his refusal of a Commission to consider it from outside Malaya but inside the British Commonwealth; and if he will ask the Sultans to suggest how their powers should be reduced in the interest of democratic government.

Mr. Hopkinson: My right hon. Friend has not refused such a commission. The first part of the Question therefore does not arise. The answer to the second part of the Question is "No." I would, however, refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) on 21st July.

Mr. Davies: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer. Can he say whether in the near future some approach will be made to the Sultans to see whether or not they, as a body, would be prepared to limit some of their powers so as to get more democratic representation inside Malaya?

Mr. Hopkinson: I do not think that question arises at all. We are concerned with the working of the new constitution, and the Commission which it is suggested should sit would be going into that particular aspect of the matter.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that any extension of political power in Malaya will mean taking powers from Sultans? Does he think that the Sultans will agree to that? Would it not be wiser if he consulted some body such as a committee composed of those representing the Commonwealth rather than the Sultans in regard to this?

Mr. Hopkinson: The position is that the Sultans have said that at their next meeting with the High Commissioner they will give further thought to the matter, but at this stage I do not think I can say any more as to the precise way in which an inquiry can be carried out.

Teaching Posts (Graduates)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that only a small number of


Malayan graduates accept teaching posts; what is the reason for this; to what extent teaching appointments are reserved for non-Malayan teachers; and what steps he proposes to take to induce more Malayan graduates to take up such posts in Singapore and the Federation.

Mr. Hopkinson: Malayan graduates are still comparatively few, and most of them prefer to enter the Civil Service rather than become teachers. No teachers' appointments are reserved for non-Malayans. No special steps are thought necessary to attract Malayan graduates to the teaching profession since the position is expected to right itself naturally as their numbers increase.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister quite satisfied that the salaries and other conditions for Malayan graduates are on an absolute equality with other people?

Mr. Hopkinson: While there is no doubt that the remuneration prospects for teachers both in Singapore and in Malaya are very good indeed, we have no reason to think that the pay is in any sense a deterrent to their job.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that since the establishment of the university at Singapore five years ago only 14 graduates have taken up appointments as teachers? Would he examine the position and find out why it is that such a small number of graduates are going into the teaching profession in Singapore and in Malaya?

Mr. Hopkinson: I gave the answer in reply to the Question, but I would point out that of some 435 graduates from the university of Malaya, no less than 42 in the past five years have obtained Diplomas of Education and are believed to have joined either Government or aided schools in the Federation or Singapore.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Mr. Pinto

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what decision has been reached by the Advisory Committee on Detainees in the case of Mr. Pinto.

Mr. Hopkinson: Mr. Pinto's appeal was due to be heard on 26th July. The Advisory Committee's decision is not yet available.

Mr. Brockway: Will the Minister give this matter very careful consideration indeed? Is he aware that Mr. Pinto, while he has expressed the grievances of Africans, has taken a leading part in denouncing the violence and activities of Mau Mau, and will the Minister consider this issue very carefully?

Mr. Hopkinson: I think I should be very unwise to comment on this matter pending the decision of the committee of inquiry.

Mr. Brockway: If I will send the right hon. Gentleman information on the lines of my supplementary question will he forward it to the Governor?

Mr. Hopkinson: I am always glad to receive information from the hon. Member, but, as I have said, it would be very unwise if I were to comment to the extent that he has done on this particular matter.

Parliamentary Delegation Report (Appendix)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what organisations he has supplied copies, for the information of their members, of the unpublished appendix to the recent Report by the Parliamentary Delegation to Kenya.

Mr. Hopkinson: Copies have been sent to a number of organisations and societies whose names I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. They have also been placed in many libraries where they are available to responsible persons on application.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the political parties, and it is not the Labour Party, is widely distributing this document among its members? Is he also aware that the "Voice of Kenya" is supplying it to any person who applies for it, and that this document, which is supposed to be kept in our Library, is being widely distributed?

Mr. Hopkinson: This document has, with the approval of the Government—

Mr. Manuel: Where are the members of the Government?

Mr. Hopkinson: —been sent to a number of societies, and we believe that it should be given maximum publicity consistent with public decency and so on.

Mr. de Freitas: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Government. Where are the Government? There are only two Whips and a junior Minister on the Government Front Bench. Surely the Government should be here?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Brockway: I want to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on this matter. A Parliamentary Delegation went to Kenya and presented a Report to this House. It had an appendix which is a private document and is restricted to the Library of this House. I have evidence that the Colonial Office sent this document to certain political parties for the information of their members and it is being widely distributed. I would ask for your ruling as to whether a document of this private character should be used in that way.

Mr. Alport: Further to that point of order. Is the House not aware that that particular document is not a secret document but was, in fact, produced by the information office of the Kenya Government and was distributed long before it was included in the proposed appendix to the Report?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the Minister whether this is not a breach of the undertaking given to the House? When the Parliamentary Delegation was compiling its Report it included this appendix as part of the Report. We were then informed by the Secretary of State that the Government had decided, for reasons which I can understand, that this part of the Report should not be published but that a copy should be available in the Library. Are we to understand now that, without any notification or without consulting anyone, that decision has been changed and copies have been given to certain individuals and private organisations? Is not that a breach of the undertaking given to the House?

Mr. Hopkinson: I do not think any undertaking was given to the House at all. The Secretary of State merely announced that he did not propose to publish this document as part of the White Paper, and the reason for that

was that the White Paper was available for purchase at railway stations and other places where young people of all sexes could have seen it and it was thought undesirable that they should read some of those facts.
But perfectly correctly, in the interests of prosecuting the campaign against Mau Mau, it was decided to send a number of copies of the document to such bodies as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Labour Party, the Liberal Party, the Trades Union Congress, the Conservative Commonwealth Council, the Royal Empire Society and others. I understand that it has been supplied as well to a number of Members of Parliament who asked for a personal copy. That is perfectly consistent with everything that has been said.

Mr. Griffiths: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, when those copies were supplied to these organisations, it was intimated to them that it was the view of the Government after due consideration that it should not be published, and has the Minister secured an undertaking from these organisations that they would not publish it?

Mr. Hopkinson: It was not the decision of the Government that it should not be published. It was their decision that it should not fall into improper hands or be delivered to undesirable quarters. We were concerned solely with the interests of the young people.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one copy of this document was sent to the Labour Party and has been placed in the Library of Transport House? In the case of other political parties, the document has been sent for the information of their members, and is being distributed by those parties to their members.

Mr. Alport: Is the Minister aware that the details contained in that report were actually included in an article written by Sir Philip Mitchell and published in the "Manchester Guardian" about eight weeks ago.

Mr. Manuel: That has nothing to do with it.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is not the explanation of the apparent discrimination clearly that there are no young people in the Conservative Party and, therefore,


it would not fall into wrong hands or the hands of juveniles if circulated by that party to their members.

The following are the organisations:

To the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for its branches overseas, the Conservative Commonwealth Council, the Labour Party, the Liberal Party. Trades Union Congress, Royal Empire Society, Royal African Society, the Imperial Institute, International African Institute, Royal Anthropological Institute, Fabian Society, Over-Seas League, African Bureau, Church Missionary Society, International Missionary Council, Conference of Missionary Societies of Great Britain and Ireland, and the Universities Mission to Central Africa. In addition, I have arranged for libraries in this country to receive copies which will be available to responsible persons on application.

Detained Persons

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many persons are now detained without trial in Kenya; and in what places and conditions they are detained.

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Africans are held in concentration camps, or villages behind barbed wire, in Kenya; and how many of them are used as labour for public and private employers.

Mr. Hopkinson: About 40,000 persons are at present detained under Emergency Regulations. Of these, 10,000 are in Works Camps in the Central Province, Rift Valley and Narok, 7,000 are in detention camps at Mackinnon Road, Athi River and Manda Island, and 23,000 are in Anvil reception centres at Mackinnon Road, Manyani and Langata.
Conditions in the camps are governed by the Emergency (Detained Persons) Regulations, 1953. Accommodation is in huts or tents, piped water is laid on and hospital accommodation is provided. Those held in works camps are voluntarily employed at local market rates on public projects such as irrigation, bush clearing and agricultural betterment.

Mr. Craddock: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very full reply, but I am shocked to learn that so many people

are under detention. Will he be good enough to look into the third part of my Question—which concerns the conditions under which so many people are detained, and which I have learned are very unsatisfactory?

Mr. Hopkinson: Our information regarding these conditions does not tally with that of the hon. Member. As a matter of fact, as my right hon. Friend said in his speech in the Kenya debate last week, a great deal of money has been spent on these camps and great care has been taken to ensure that they are well run. We have a good testimonial from the Church Missionary Society in regard to these conditions.

Mr. G. Thomas: Can the Minister say how many of those 40,000 people have been detained without trial for a long period, or is he not aware that it is very disturbing and certainly not in harmony with what he called British ideas in the last Question?

Mr. Hopkinson: There is another Question which is down to be asked on that point, and which I shall answer if it is reached. Briefly, the position is that these persons are held either under detention orders, in which case they have the right of appeal to an advisory committee which is, in effect, a trial—

Mr. Stokes: It is not a trial.

Mr. Hopkinson: At any rate, they have access to an appeal committee or, alternatively, they are in process of being screened and will subsequently either be released or detained.

Mr. Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman state how long it is intended to keep these men in detention before bringing them to trial? Have the Government set any time limit in this question?

Mr. Hopkinson: The work of screening is going forward extremely quickly, as the House was informed during the debate on Kenya.

Mr. Stokes: Does not the Minister remember that not many weeks ago I was told—I think by him—that the whole screening process would be through in about four months? I did not believe it; I told him that at the rate it was going when I was there it would take about nine


years. What does he really mean now? It is no use saying that the process is going on; we know it is. How quickly is it proceeding?

Mr. Hopkinson: It is going on faster than was expected, and a great deal faster than the right hon. Gentleman suggested.

Mr. Stokes: Will it be finished in three months? A few weeks ago the Minister told us that it would be completed in four months. He now says that it is going to be finished quicker than he expected. Are we to understand, therefore, that the screening is to be finished in three months? Surely I am entitled to an answer to that question?

Mr. Hopkinson: If the right hon. Gentleman cares to put down a Question on that point—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] This Question deals with the conditions in the camps, which is quite a different question from that raised by the right hon. Gentleman. If he cares to put down a Question on the subject, I shall be prepared to answer it.

Mr. Craddock: Owing to the unsatisfactory answers which have been given, I beg to give notice that I shall take the earliest opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what form of legal aid is given in Kenya to parties charged with serious offences which carry a penalty less than the death penalty.

Mr. Hopkinson: There is no established practice in this matter, which is dealt with administratively, but in difficult or complex cases the trial judge may require counsel to be assigned to the accused.

Mr. Craddock: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this should be put upon a satisfactory basis, so that these indigenous people can have representation, which at least gives them justice?

Mr. Hopkinson: We must remember that a large number of persons are involved. When I said that it is dealt with administratively, I meant that it is done with the help of district officers or district commissioners, who in many cases are men whom the accused persons know and trust and who are able to help them.

Mr. G. Thomas: Am I to understand from the Minister's reply that the Charter of Human Rights does not apply to these people? Are we to understand that coloured people can be treated in any fashion? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Did hon. Members listen to the Minister's reply?

Mr. Hopkinson: It the hon. Member will read my original reply, together with the supplementary. I think that he will see that that is not so.

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Europeans, Asians, Africans and persons of other races, respectively, have died in Kenya while under arrest in Her Majesty's prisons or in places of detention during the last two years.

Mr. Hopkinson: In the period 1952, 1953 and the first half of 1954: 402 Africans; no Europeans or Asians.

Mr. Craddock: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that conditions under which so many people die ought to be improved? Will he kindly give further attention to this matter?

Mr. Hopkinson: I do not think there is any reason to believe that the number of deaths is in any way out of proportion to the number of persons detained.

Mr. Hastings: Can the Minister state the principal cause of death? Can he say whether a great many died from tuberculosis contracted while they were under arrest?

Mr. Hopkinson: We have asked the Governor by telegram to let us have that information. Certainly a number of cases are due to tuberculosis and malaria.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman pursue this investigation quickly, as there is evidence that the incidence of tuberculosis is growing? Will he look at that matter in relation to the conditions existing in these camps?

Mr. Hopkinson: We are watching the position very carefully, and we shall continue to do so.

Income Tax

Mr. Benn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will ask the Kenya Government to increase the rate


of Income Tax to the level of the United Kingdom, in view of the recent further grant of £4 million from this country.

Mr. Hopkinson: No, Sir.

Mr. Benn: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that by having a differential rate of Income Tax between Kenya and this country we are, in effect, providing an economic subsidy for the higher ranges of Income Tax payers in Kenya? Does not he agree that that is not the best way in which the money of British taxpayers can be spent upon colonial development?

Mr. Hopkinson: The Government of Kenya have already raised taxes this year by £2½ million, which represents 10 per cent. of their total revenue. Although the rates of tax upon the lower incomes are relatively lower than those in the United Kingdom, the persons with the highest incomes pay a rate which is three-quarters that of this country. People here are getting a great deal inure for their money in the way of old-age security, free education, and many other things which are not available in Kenya.

Mr. Baldwin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the standard of living and the educational progress of the Africans are to be maintained it is essential that people in this young and growing country should not have a penal rate of taxation?

Mr. Hopkinson: Yes, Sir. I entirely agree.

Mr. Benn: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the Government regard this as the best way of helping to raise African standards of living?

Mr. Dugdale: Will the Minister state whether, if the Government intend to continue with this policy, they will consider making Kenya a grant-aided territory?

Mr. Hopkinson: No. I think everybody understands the position. The economy of Kenya was perfectly sound and prosperous until the emergency. The emergency brought special charges and difficulties, but once it is at an end Kenya will be in a position to pay her way as she was doing before.

Mr. Jay: Is not what my hon. Friend said quite accurate, that these are subsidies by the United Kingdom taxpayers? Why should the wealthy taxpayers of Kenya pay a lesser rate of taxation than those here?

Mr. Hopkinson: I made the matter quite clear. [HON. MEMBERS "No."] What the right hon. Gentleman said is not the case, having regard to the different circumstances of the two countries.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he has a statement to make on an alteration of business?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. It has been arranged through the usual channels for a debate to take place on Egypt tomorrow. It will arise on a Government Motion, and it is hoped to conclude the debate by about 7 p.m. Afterwards we shall proceed with the Committee and remaining stages of the Appropriation Bill. I understand that representations will be made to Mr. Speaker for time to be earmarked on Friday for a debate on disarmament. If, Mr. Speaker, you are able to fall in with this suggestion, then the Government would propose, with the agreement of the House, to suspend the rule for two hours, which would mean that the House would sit until 6.30 p.m. on Friday instead of 4.30 p.m.

Mr. Wigg: Is not this another example of how the Government are taking away the time of back benchers? Would not the right hon. Gentleman think it far more dignified if we were to meet on Saturday or next week and thus provide more time for debate and so preserve the rights of back benchers? Mr. Speaker, I would ask you this question. Have you fallen in with the Government's plans in this matter?

Mr. J. Amery: Having regard to the fact that we have been 72 years in Egypt, and whatever view may be taken of the agreement that has been arrived at, is it not rather a pity that only half a day should be allotted to the discussion of this extremely important departure? I do not know whether the responsibility for the allocation of time in this instance lies with the Leader of the House or with


the party opposite. It is a matter for the usual channels, I think, but I ask the Leader of the House to consider making the debate a full day's debate.

Mr. Crookshank: I think it is very good of the Opposition to make it possible for us to have this important debate tomorrow. With regard to the question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), this proposal does not interfere with private Members' rights because, unlike today's Motion, the Motion will come before the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

Mr. Attlee: Would the right hon. Gentleman make it plain to his hon. Friends that a day on Appropriation is always a matter for the Opposition, and that we have, in fact, departed from custom in order to give the Government an opportunity of making a statement on Egypt and the House an opportunity of considering it? The reason it is proposed that the debate should be terminated at about seven o'clock is that it is right to preserve the rights of private Members who have constituency points which they wish to raise. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make it plain that, when we return after the Recess, the Government will make up for the time which the Opposition have so graciously conceded to them?

Mr. Crookshank: It is because I appreciated the right hon. Gentleman's solicitude in this matter that I expressed my thanks to him for his co-operation in helping us to have a debate which all the House wants as soon as possible.

Mr. Mellish: But what about making up the time?

Mr. S. Silverman: Mr. Speaker, you will remember that a few days ago I raised with you as a matter of order discussions between the usual channels and agreements reached whereby the time and the rights of private Members were sacrificed. The point I raised with you had regard to the very Bill that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, which is down for Second Reading today, the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. Since then a large number of my right hon. and hon. Friends have pursued the point further with you.
I think that it would be right to say that a great deal of anxiety has been disclosed about the limitation of the rights of private Members on an occasion which is traditionally and by custom of this House theirs. What we are told today is that, in order to enable part of the Conservative Party to pursue peaceful coexistence with the other part, the rest of us who are private Members in the House are to sacrifice still another large portion of these two days which are by custom ours.
I do suggest to you that, whatever the practice may be about agreements being reached between the usual channels for the convenience of official groups and official Members, it ought not to be operated in such a way as to take away from the ordinary private back-bench Member probably the only opportunity that he has throughout the year of raising questions that cannot otherwise be raised. I suggest to you, therefore, that it is quite wrong that this practice should come to be abused, and that private Members are entitled to your protection.

Mr. Speaker: It is my recollection of the last 25 years as a Member of this House that very frequently the Consolidated Fund Bill has been chosen by the Opposition as an occasion to raise a major topic. I think that has been the practice during all my time. We remember debates on foreign affairs and various other things taking place on this very Bill. I see nothing new or revolutionary in the idea that the Opposition should use the debate on this Bill as an occasion for raising some major topic which they wish to raise. That is in accordance with the practice of the House.
As regards what I have just heard about tomorrow's business, the arrangement of business on the Order Paper is a prerogative of the Government, a1nd if they put down a Motion on Egypt as the first Order and the Bill next, that is quite in order, and no point arises for me to rule upon.

Mr. Silverman: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether you have observed the consequential loss of private Members' time resultant from these arrangements. My right hon. Friends had a subject for discussion for the first part of tomorrow to which they attached, and in my opinion correctly attached, very considerable


importance. The result of the rearrangement is to transfer that debate to Friday. Friday is the very last opportunity this Session for private Members to deal with matters which they wish to raise and of which they have given notice. By the custom of the last three or four years the allocation of time on an Adjournment day has been left to you. As I understand it the time for that day has already been allotted. The result of these arrangements was first that we would lose half of today, but now, in addition, we shall lose half of tomorrow and then half of Friday, the Adjournment day. I should say that if you take all the facts together, they will show that this is becoming an absolute abuse and invasion of the rights of private Members.

Mr. Speaker: If I understand correctly what has just been suggested by the right bon. Gentleman, all that will happen is that, instead of having a debate from 3.30 —or whenever we are allowed to get on with business—until 7 o'clock tomorrow, we are to have a two-hour debate on Friday. That debate, if I understand the matter correctly, is to take place after the private Members who have subjects on the Adjournment have had their say. So the total loss is an hour or an hour and a half of the time that had been allotted for the debate on disarmament.

Mr. Paget: There is one further point, Mr. Speaker. It must be a matter of very great importance that of the short time allocated, from about 3.30 until 7, probably two-thirds will be occupied by Privy Councillors. May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the debate on Egypt should continue so as to provide back benchers with some opportunity to take part in it? Then if there are matters to be debated of less general importance, although of great importance to the individual Members concerned, they can be debated on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, and the debate on that Bill can continue until 11 o'clock on Friday morning.

Mr. Speaker: That plea is quite correctly made to me but the power of satisfying it does not rest with me.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Further to the question of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), would it be possible for the

Leader of the House to give us an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will make no effort to move the Closure on what is obviously one of the most important debates of this Session?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think we can proceed with these matters now.

Mr. Greenwood: rose—

Mr. Speaker: It is not in order to ask the Government when they propose to move the Closure.

Mr. Greenwood: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member rise to a point of order?

Mr. Greenwood: Surely it is perfectly in order for an hon. Member, when the subject of the business for the week is under discussion, to ask the Government what are their intentions in respect of a particular debate? All I am asking, in the interests of hon. Members on the back benches on both sides, is that there shall be no effort on the part of the Government further to curtail the amount of time at the disposal of Private Members.

Mr. Keenan: Further to that point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Under the very difficult circumstances, is it not possible for the Leader of the House and his right hon. Friends in the Government to recognise the difficulty in which the House finds itself? There is insufficient time to accommodate either the Government or the back benchers. Cannot this difficulty be overcome? Surely the importance of the Suez Canal and the other matters to be discussed are such that we ought not to go on holiday next week. Why cannot we meet next week?

Mr. Warbey: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: I have had a lot of questions addressed to me in the guise of points of order which were not points of order. I hope that this is a point of order to which I can give a reply.

Mr. Warbey: I am raising an additional point of order—namely, to ask whether any of the rearrangements of the timetable which were announced will in your view impede the rights of Members to oppose the Motion for the Adjournment for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Speaker: That is a debatable Motion and I do not see that any statement on business can change a debatable Motion into one which is undebatable.

Mr. Lewis: May I, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, ask the Leader of the House whether he will reply to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) about meeting next week? All hon. Members on this side of the House are willing to meet next week.

SUEZ CANAL ZONE BASE (ANGLO-EGYPTIAN AGREEMENT)

Mr. Anthony Eden: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on Egypt in answer to Questions Nos. 5. 11 and 2.
I am glad to be able to tell the House that we have reached agreement in principle with the Egyptian Government on the future of the Suez Canal Zone Base. The full texts of the Heads of Agreement and of the Annex on the organisation of the Base will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT and will also be made available as a White Paper this evening. Meanwhile, I should like to give a short summary of their provisions.
The Heads of Agreement provide that those parts of the Base which we require shall be kept in efficient working order and capable of immediate use in the event of an armed attack by an outside Power on Egypt, or on any member of the Arab League, or on Turkey. If such an attack takes place, Egypt will afford to the United Kingdom the necessary facilities to place the Base on a war footing and to operate it effectively.
In the event of the threat of an attack on any of the countries I have mentioned there will be immediate consultation between the United Kingdom and Egypt.
The installations we are retaining are required to assist in the supply and maintenance of Her Majesty's Forces in the Middle East in peace. They will also hold certain war reserves. They will be operated by civilian labour through firms, British or Egyptian, under contract to Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. These contractors will be afforded by the Egyptian Government all

the facilities which they require for their work. Her Majesty's Government will also have the necessary facilities for the inspection of these installations.
The Heads of Agreement have been initialled by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, to whom Her Majesty's Government are much indebted for the decisive part he played in the final stages of these difficult discussions. [An HON. MEMBER: "The next resignation."] Negotiations for a formal Agreement will now begin.
Our forces will be withdrawn from the Canal Zone within a period of 20 months from the date of the signature of the formal Agreement.
That Agreement will last for seven years from the date of signature. There is provision for consultation between the parties during the last year of its duration as to what arrangements are necessary on its conclusion.
The Agreement will also include a clause recognising the economic, commercial and stategic importance of the Suez Canal, and will express the determination of both parties to uphold the 1888 Convention guaranteeing freedom of navigation.
There is also a clause providing for overflying, landing and servicing facilities for aircraft under R.A.F. control.
There will be many points of detail to be worked out in the drafting of the Agreement itself.
It is the conviction of Her Majesty's Government that this Agreement will preserve our essential requirements in this area in the light of modern conditions. We are convinced that in the Middle East as elsewhere our defence arrangements must be based on consent and co-operation with the peoples concerned. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Cyprus?"] I would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm the intention of Her Majesty's Government to abide by the terms of the Tripartite Declaration of 25th May, 1950, relating to peace and stability between the Arab States and Israel.
I have discussed this point with the French and the United States Governments and find them both equally determined to uphold that Declaration.
It is our hope that it will now be possible to establish our relations with Egypt on a new basis of friendship and


understanding. Her Majesty's Government believe that this is also the intention of the Egyptian Government. The Agreement should thus contribute to a reduction of tension throughout the Middle East as a whole.

Following are the texts:

HEADS OF AGREEMENT

It is agreed between the Egyptian and British Delegations that with a view to establishing Anglo-Egyptian relations on a new basis of mutual understanding and firm friendship, and taking into account their obligations under the United Nations Charter, an agreement regarding the Suez Canal Base should now be drafted on the following lines.

2. The agreement will last until the expiry of seven years from the date of signature. During the last twelve months of this period the two Governments will consult together to decide what arrangements are necessary upon the termination of the agreement.

3. Parts of the present Suez Canal Base will be kept in efficient working order in accordance with the requirements set forth in Annex 1 and capable of immediate use in accordance with the following paragraph.

4. (i) In the event of an armed attack by an outside Power on Egypt, on any country which at the date of signature of the present agreement is a party to the Treaty of Joint Defence between Arab League States or on Turkey, Egypt will afford to the United Kingdom such facilities as may be necessary in order to place the Base on a war footing and to operate it effectively. These facilities will include the use of Egyptian ports within the limits of what is strictly indispensable for the above-mentioned purposes.
(ii) In the event of a threat of an attack on any of the above-mentioned countries, there shall be immediate consultation between the United Kingdom and Egypt.

5. The organisation of the Base will be in accordance with Annex 1 attached.

6. The United Kingdom will be accorded the right to move any British material into or out of the Base at its discretion. There will be no increase above the level of supplies to be agreed upon without the consent of the Egyptian Government.

7. Her Majesty's forces will be completely withdrawn from Egyptian territory according to a schedule to be established in due course within a period of twenty months from the date of signature of this agreement. The Egyptian Government will afford all necessary facilities for the movement of men and material in this connexion.

8. The agreement will recognise that the Suez Maritime Canal, which is an integral part of Egypt, is a waterway economically, commercially and strategically of international importance, and will express the determination of both parties to uphold the 1888 Convention guaranteeing the freedom of navigation of the Canal.

9. The Egyptian Government will afford overflying, landing and servicing facilities for notified flights of aircraft under R.A.F. control. For the clearance of any flights the Egyptian Government will extend most favoured nation treatment.

10. There will be questions of detail to be covered in the drafting of the agreement including the storage of oil, the financial arrangements necessary, and other detailed matters of importance to both sides. These will be settled by friendly agreement in negotiations which will begin forthwith.

ANNEX 1

Organisation of the Base

Her Majesty's Government shall have the right to maintain certain agreed installations and to operate them for current requirements. Should Her Majesty's Government decide at any time no longer to maintain all these installations they will discuss with the Egyptian Government the disposal of any installation which they no longer require. The approval of the Egyptian Government must be obtained for any new construction.

2. Following the withdrawal of Her Majesty's forces the Egyptian Government will assume responsibility for the security of the base and of all equipment contained therein, or in transit on Egyptian territory to and from the base.

3. Her Majesty's Government will conclude contracts with one or more British or Egyptian commercial firms for the up-keep and operation of the installations referred to in paragraph 1 and the maintenance of the stores contained in these installations. These commercial firms will have the right to engage British and Egyptian civilian technicians and personnel; the number of the British technicians employed by these commercial firms shall not exceed a figure which shall be agreed upon in the detailed negotiations. These commercial firms will have also the right to engage such local labour as they may require.

4. The Egyptian Government will give full support to the commercial firms referred to in paragraph 3 to enable them to carry out these tasks and will designate an authority with whom the contractors can co-operate for the discharge of their duties.

5. The Egyptian Government will maintain in good order such installations, public utilities, communications, bridges, pipe-lines and wharves, etc, as will be handed over to it according to agreement between the two Governments. The commercial firms referred to in paragraph 3 will be afforded such facilities as may be required in their operations.

6. Her Majesty's Government will be afforded facilities for the inspection of the installations referred to in paragraph 1 and the work being carried out therein. To facilitate this personnel shall be attached to Her Majesty's Embassy in Cairo. The maximum number of such personnel will be agreed between the two Governments.

Mr. Attlee: In view of the fact that we are to have a debate tomorrow, I do not think it would be proper for me to ask many questions, but I should like to


ask one: in view of the statements which were made by the present Prime Minister on the absolute necessity of having troops in Egypt for the defence of the Suez Canal and the violent language which he used when any proposal was put forward from this side of the House for withdrawal from Egypt, may I ask whether this agreement has the Prime Minister's consent?

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): I am convinced that it is absolutely necessary.

Mr. Assheton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the news which he has given us will be a great shock to millions of Her Majesty's subjects all over the Commonwealth and is also a matter of very grave concern to many of his own supporters?

Mr. Eden: I really cannot accept what my right hon. Friend has just said, that it will be a shock to Her Majesty's subjects all over the Commonwealth. That is a statement which I could not possibly endorse. For one thing, I do not think that any Member of this House is entitled to speak for the Commonwealth as a whole. I must add that the Commonwealth Governments have been kept in the fullest touch with every stage of these discussions, and I have no reason whatever to believe that the Commonwealth Governments endorse the views which my right hon. Friend has just expressed.

Mr. H. Morrison: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his statement with regard to the Suez Canal means that there is now to be effective, free facilities for the transit of shipping through the Suez Canal, including shipping destined for Israel? Secondly, is he satisfied that the interests of Israel have been adequately safeguarded? Thirdly, is it the case that the information which he has now given to the House was first of all given to a committee of the Conservative Party upstairs?

Mr. Eden: I have done nothing improper so far as the committee upstairs is concerned. I have as much right to speak to the members of my party as the right hon. Gentleman has to speak to his. I found the experience agreeable, as I trust that he always does. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman's question about Israel, we have, of course, had very much

in mind the question of relations between Egypt and Israel. The position about the Canal, as the right hon. Gentleman knows well, does not arise out of the Agreement of 1936, of which this is a replacement, but under the Suez Canal Convention of 1888.

Mr. Shinwell: rose—

Mr. Eden: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer this important question. The position about the Suez Canal arises under the Suez Canal Convention of 1888 and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the trouble has arisen as a result of the war between the Arab States and Israel. It is the wish of the whole House to try to reduce tension between the Arab States and Israel, and I would ask the House to judge for itself whether we shall be better able to use that influence if we have an agreement with Egypt or not.

Mr. Speaker: I should like to remind the House that we are to have a debate tomorrow.

Mr. Manuel: Not for the back benchers.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) should not take such a gloomy view. While questions to elucidate some facts are useful, I do ask hon. Members to refrain from anticipating the debate tomorrow.

Mr. Shinwell: I am rising on what, I hope, is a point of order; you, Sir, will advise me whether it is a correct point of order or not. It is this. It is already intimated that there is agreement on both sides that the debate will have the Closure applied, or at any rate it will be suspended or adjourned, at seven o'clock tomorrow. We shall therefore have a very short debate, and, in these circumstances, would it not be in order to ask one or two supplementary questions to elucidate the facts?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that what the right hon. Gentleman has said differs from what I tried to say. The expression of strong opinions is debate, but asking Questions to obtain facts is quite another thing.

Mr. Shinwell: In order to elucidate the facts so that hon. Members may be properly informed when the debate takes


place tomorrow, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions bearing on his statement? One is this—whether, pending the formal Agreement to which he referred, arising out of the present Agreement, is it intended to supply arms to Egypt? The second point I wish to put is this—whether the tripartite Agreement to which he has referred does not make it clear, beyond any possibility of doubt, that no arms will be supplied to any of the Arab States unless there is a firm assurance that they will not commit an act of aggression against any other State in the Middle East?

Mr. Eden: There is nothing whatever in this Agreement which compels Her Majesty's Government or permits Her Majesty's Government to supply arms to Egypt. That, of course, is a position which would have to be related, as the right hon. Gentleman quite rightly said, in its general context to the engagements we all have under the 1950 tripartite Agreement.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. You stated, Mr. Speaker, that, in view of the fact that there is to be a debate tomorrow, there perhaps would not be the necessity to have too many supplementary questions. May I draw to your attention the fact that a number of my hon. Friends on this side of the House intend to take part in the debate on the Motion concerning the Adjournment of the House for the Summer Recess? In view of the fact that that time will of necessity come out of the hours already suggested by the Leader of the House for the debate on Egypt, which is to end at seven o'clock, is it not a fact that the debate on that Motion concerning the Adjournment may go on until four, five or six o'clock, which will mean that we shall have only one hour's debate tomorrow on Egypt, and that, by the time the Front Benchers have spoken, the back benchers will have no time at all? I therefore again ask you to make some arrangement so that the rights of back benchers are protected in this matter.

Mr. Speaker: To some extent back benchers have their rights in their own hands, and if there is a long debate on the Motion for the Adjournment, that, of course, may take up time, but we must see how we get on. I cannot anticipate.

Miss Ward: On a point of order. May I ask whether I should be in order in suggesting that there are back-bench Members on this side of the House as well as on the other side?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the whole House is conscious of that fact.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: On a point of order. May I respectfully draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that so far no back bencher on either side has had an opportunity of asking any supplementary question on this issue of Egypt?

Mr. A. Henderson: rose—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman had a question on the Order Paper for answer today he was promised an answer in a statement after Questions.

Mr. Henderson: May I ask whether it is intended to continue the alliance between the two countries which was established under Article 4 of the 1936 Treaty?

Mr. Eden: This will be a new instrument, when it is negotiated, which will take the place of the 1936 Treaty.

Mr. P. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned in his statement the Suez Canal Convention of 1888. Is there as yet any indication at all from the Egyptian Government that they will even consider re-establishing freedom of the Canal?

Mr. Eden: The respect in which there is interference with the Canal or prohibition of the passage of goods through the Canal arises from the Israel-Arab war and the failure to settle their armistice. It is in that context that Egypt has stopped the passage of certain strategic goods to Israel. The whole House wants to try to reduce tension and to get a final settlement between the Arabs and the Israelis. I ask my hon. Friend whether it is not a good idea to start improving our relations with Egypt and making that a better foundation.

Mr. Paget: Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the general satisfaction that the Prime Minister has at last recognised the necessity of this measure? In what


respects are the present Heads of Agreement worse than those which were available to us two years ago? Are they in any respect better?

Mr. Eden: Comparisons are always odious. Our hope is that this arrangement with the Government now established in Egypt is one which can develop in real friendship between the two countries. At least, I hope that the House will give it a real chance to do so.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: For our guidance in studying the White Paper, can my right hon. Friend say whether these terms are more gentle towards Egypt than those offered by his predecessors in office and by himself earlier on?

Mr. Eden: I much regret that I have not had time to make that comparison. I have not negotiated this arrangement on the basis of finding whether this or that was better or less better than anything offered before. What I have tried to do was to reach an arrangement which I thought was fair and reasonable between the two countries and which I was justified in putting before this House.

Mr. S. Silverman: While I fully endorse the Foreign Secretary's view that the interests of Israel will gain more an improvement of general relations in the Middle East than by a continuance of their present or past relationship, will the Foreign Secretary nevertheless bear in mind that the attack by Egypt on Israel, out of which, the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, the present prohibition of passage through the Suez Canal arises, was itself an act of completely unprovoked aggression? Was any reference made during the discussions to the continued existence of this infringement of the arrangements with regard to the Suez Canal and free passage through it?

Mr. Eden: This is a subject which has been fully discussed on a number of occasions between us and the Egyptian Government. I should be quite willing to go into it in the debate tomorrow, but I do not think that I should deal further with it now.

Major Legge-Bourke: In view of the fact that any treaty along the lines now proposed would depend upon the stability of the Egyptian Government, and since

the Egyptian Government's stability will depend very largely upon its economic stability, will the Foreign Secretary say whether, in addition to this Canal arrangement, Her Majesty's Government propose to try to negotiate a trade treaty with Egypt, and if so, when they propose to begin?

Mr. Eden: One of the results of this arrangement should be to improve our commercial relations with Egypt, which would assuredly be of benefit to both countries. It is also our hope that the increased resulting stability in the Middle East will be of benefit economically as a whole. It may be that other countries may also be able to do something to help economically.

Mr. Wigg: The Foreign Secretary referred to the movement of troops from the Canal Zone as a withdrawal. Will he kindly say at what date that word came into use in the Foreign Office and was accepted by his party, remembering that the Prime Minister used the word "scuttle" repeatedly?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Member may prefer "redeployment" I do not mind.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is becoming a debate.

CYPRUS (CONSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS)

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): Her Majesty's Government have decided that the time has come to take a fresh initiative in the development of self-governing institutions in Cyprus. They are convinced that, given good will, an early start can be made in associating the people of Cyprus in the fuller management of their own affairs. They wish to make it clear once again that they cannot contemplate a change of sovereignty in Cyprus.
The proposed constitutional arrangements have not yet been worked out in detail, but will be broadly as follows. In 1948 a constitution was offered which would have given a high degree of internal self-government, but, although the offer has remained open for six years, it has not been taken up by responsible and representative political leaders. Her


Majesty's Government have therefore decided to wait no longer but to introduce in the near future a modified constitution providing for a legislature containing both official and nominated members—together forming a majority—and elected members and also for the appointment to the Executive Council of some unofficial members of the legislature to take charge of Departments. This will mark a first step along the road of constitutional advancement and will enable Cypriots to take a part in operating self-governing institutions and exercising responsibility both in legislation and in the executive control of administration. The Governor has been instructed to take all action necessary in preparation for the introduction of a new constitution on these lines.
British administration in Cyprus, besides bringing much prosperity to the island and safeguarding the rights of all sections of the population, has maintained and still maintains stable conditions in this vital strategic area. Her Majesty's Government are resolved Ito continue their vigorous policy of economic development in Cyprus. The efficient administration in the island, in which a large number of Cypriots play a most effective part, has brought about vast improvements in health, agriculture, communications and many other fields. Since the war great strides have been made, thanks to a stable currency linked to sterling and a sound budgetary policy. Cyprus has access to the London loan market on the favourable terms which are available to Colonial Governments. The Government's plans for economic development are estimated to cost £15½ million over the 10-year period 1946–56.
Substantial direct assistance has been given from United Kingdom funds under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts and Cyprus will receive assistance from the additional funds which Parliament will be asked to provide for colonial development and welfare. Water supplies have been piped to hundreds of villages, denuded mountains have been re-afforested, malaria has been expelled, the effects of soil erosion are being vigorously combatted, and industry has been encouraged and developed. The question of port development is at this moment being actively studied.
Her Majesty's Government fully recognise that the Greek-speaking and

Turkish-speaking parts of the population have close cultural links with Greece and Turkey. Without sacrifice of those traditions. Cypriots have before them the prospect of expanding opportunities in economic, social and constitutional development.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Minister has made a very important statement and my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself will want time to consider the full implications of what he has said; I reserve our rights in that regard. I should like, however, to ask some questions.
First, have any discussions taken place in recent weeks between the new Governor and the leaders of responsible parties in Cyprus? Second, are the Government taking fully into account the possibility that this step may be rendered nugatory by a boycott in Cyprus, and has the policy been decided upon bearing that possibility fully in mind? Third, on the details of the constitution—I cannot offhand make the comparison—how do the new proposals compare with the 1948 constitution? Finally—which is important—are these steps being taken with the full intention that they shall lead eventually to full Dominion status, which means that when that status is reached Cyprus will have the right to decide its own future?

Mr. Hopkinson: The right hon. Gentleman has asked me four questions. First, he asked whether there had been any discussions with responsible party leaders in Cyprus. Of course, the new Governor, who has been there now for some six months, has been taking every step to inform himself as to opinion in all sections of the Colony, but there have been no discussions with the leaders of the two main political parties, the Nationalists and the Communists, neither of whom have been willing so far to operate the 1948 constitution, which has been open to them.
As regards the second point, of course there is always the possibility of a boycott of any new constitution, but we must hope that enough men of good will and of moderate views will come forward and take part in the new constitution, both as nominated members and as elected members, and that this, in due course, will lead to further co-operation by the political parties.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me for certain details in regard to the new constitution. I cannot give him those because it has not been settled yet. I cannot go any further than what I have said, except that there will be a majority of nominated plus official members, although there will be provision for elected members. In the 1948 constitution, the right hon. Gentleman will remember, it was the other way round and there was a majority of elected as against official and nominated members.
The last and the most important question which the right hon. Gentleman put to me was whether in due course this would lead to self-government—I think he called it Dominion status—and the right, I take it, to opt out of the Commonwealth. Certainly this is a first step on the road to self-government and it depends on how the new scheme is operated by the parties in Cyprus as to how fast we can go along on that road. At the same time, my statement has made it quite clear that there can be no question of any change of sovereignty in Cyprus—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—no question of any change in sovereignty. That, therefore, would act as a limitation on the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman put in the last part of his question.

Mr. Griffiths: As I have not the details of the 1948 constitution before me—I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has them here—I asked him a question as to the comparison. I gathered from his reply that there is one important difference, that whereas before there was a provision for an elected majority, now there is not. May we ask what prompted the Government to make an important change of that kind?
It is the declared policy of both sides of the House and of the whole of this Parliament that our policy in the Colonies is to guide and assist them gradually towards self-government within the Commonwealth, and we have always declared that self-government within the Commonwealth will reach the stage at which they will be, within the meaning of the Statute of Westminster, independent and entitled at that stage to decide for themselves their future relations with the Commonwealth. Are we now to understand that, so far as Cyprus is concerned, it is not proposed that this constitutional

development shall take its normal course which it has in other places, in conformity with the policy of this House?

Mr. Hopkinson: The reason Her Majesty's Government are to put forward revised proposals for a constitution is that, when the 1948 constitution was drawn up and offered to the Consultative Assembly, the full co-operation of the main parties was presupposed, but that co-operation has not been forthcoming and they have not been willing to operate that constitution of 1948. In many other respects certain of these political leaders in Cyprus have shown that the necessary co-operation to operate such a constitution would not be forthcoming, so in fact the constitution would not work. We are therefore proposing a constitution which we hope will work.
In regard to the second part of the question, it has always been understood and agreed that there are certain territories in the Commonwealth which, owing to their particular circumstances, can never expect to be fully independent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there are some territorities which cannot expect to be that. I am not going as far as that this afternoon, but I have said that the question of the abrogation of British sovereignty cannot arise—that British sovereignty will remain.

Mr. Griffiths: The Minister is aware, as we are aware, that there are small territories in the Colonies to which at any given stage, so far as it is possible to foresee, the grant of Dominion status would be meaningless because of their circumstances, but what he is saying is different. If I understood him correctly, he is saying that in Cyprus it is not intended that, at the appropriate stage in her evolution, she will have conferred upon her Dominion status with all the rights that go with it, not because she is not able to do it but as a matter of policy. Is that what the Government have decided?

Mr. Hopkinson: I do not think I can add to what I have said already on this point.

Mr. C. Davies: The Minister used these words in his statement, that this was the first step along the road towards constitutional development. It is only right that we should know exactly what he


means by that. Does he really mean, whether it is a long step or a finicky step, that this will lead to full self-government by the people of Cyprus? If he does not mean that, then what meaning does he or the Government attach to the words used by the Prime Minister and the President of the United States recently with regard to the self-government of peoples?

Mr. Hopkinson: I have made it quite clear that this is a first step towards self-government, but it depends on the way in which it is operated by the people of Cyprus as to how rapidly we can move along that path. I have also said that the question of sovereignty does not arise. In regard to the declaration made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the President of the United States recently, it was made perfectly clear in that statement that independence should be given to those peoples who desire, and are capable of sustaining, an independent existence. What is now proposed in regard to Cyprus entirely conforms with that provision.

Mr. Alport: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is satisfied that in the new constitution there will be sufficient safeguards to prevent its subversion by Communist minorities in the interests of a Communist régime in that country?

Mr. Hopkinson: That is certainly our intention. Of course, there is a Communist Party in Cyprus and it is probably the biggest and the best organised. While we want to establish a legislature, it certainly would not be in the interests of anybody to do so in a form in which it would be Communist-dominated. As we made clear in British Guiana, we are not prepared to tolerate the establishment of Communist régimes in British Colonies.

Mr. Bevan: In the first instance, may I ask you, Sir, to appreciate the fact that we have just had an exceedingly important statement—once more made immediately before the House rises; that the statement itself will be fiercely resented by the population of Cyprus; that it follows closely on the heels of the statement made by the Foreign Secretary; that we are leaving Egypt directly as a consequence of the fact that we are not welcome there and that we cannot stay amidst a hostile population; that we are,

in fact, establishing the Middle East Command in the middle of a hostile population, made more hostile by the extraordinarily unfortunate language used this afternoon—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman should ask a question.

Mr. Bevan: I am asking a series of questions, Sir. Is it not a fact that this is the case, and that when he made his statement the right hon. Gentleman flatly contradicted himself, because it has always been understood that self-government—

Mr. Alport: On a point of order. In view of your Ruling earlier this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, that the object of a supplementary question should be to elicit information, is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to make statements at great length which are in any case highly inaccurate and tendentious?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged for the assistance of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bevan: Is it not a fact that, unless the matter is cleared up today, there will be immediate repercussions in Cyprus? That is why I am asking the question—how does the right hon. Gentleman interpret the Statute of Westminster except as the right to contract in or to contract out of the Commonwealth? That is precisely what sovereign rights mean. Is it not, therefore, the fact that, if Cyprus is not to be permitted at any time full sovereignty, that is a denial of complete self-government by Cyprus? How, therefore, does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile all those considerations, and is this not a most unfortunate statement to make at this time?

Mr. Hopkinson: I made it perfectly clear in my original reply that, as far as this particular territory is concerned, the question of sovereignty does not arise. I also said to the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) just now that we are all agreed that certain territories have to be dealt with in particular ways, and that it is not possible to treat every British Colonial Territory in exactly the same way. In referring to the Egyptian negotiations, the right hon. Gentleman seems to forget that Cyprus is British territory, whereas the position in Egypt is that we are dealing with the presence of a force there under treaty rights. I


do not see any reason to expect any difficulties in Cyprus as a result of this statement, and I would only add that I think it is the considered view of Her Majesty's Government that nothing less than continued sovereignty over this island can enable Britain to carry out her strategic obligations to Europe, the Mediterranean and the Middle East.

Mr. Wyatt: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
The making of a highly ambiguous statement by the Government about the future of Cyprus which can only add confusion at a moment just before we rise for the Summer Recess, and at a time when there can be no possibility of further clarification.

Mr. Speaker: I could not accept such a Motion as within the Standing Order.

Mr. J. Griffiths: You have ruled, Mr. Speaker, that you will not accept my hon. Friend's Motion under the Standing Order, but, in order that we may be able the better to judge, I wish to ask the Minister a question. We have not yet heard from the right hon. Gentleman when the new constitution is to come into operation. Are we to understand, therefore, that the Government do not propose to implement this policy until the House resumes? If it is the Government's intention to implement it before the House resumes, does that not affect any Ruling which you, Sir, may give on the question of Standing Order No. 9?

Mr. Speaker: I took the position to be that this was a preliminary statement for the introduction of a new constitution. No one knows whether it will be worked or adopted. It is not by any means urgent as yet. We have plenty of time to discuss it when we come back.

Mr. Callaghan: If it is the case that it is not urgent, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why in his preliminary paragraph the Minister said that the Government had decided that they could wait no longer? Why make a statement of that sort today? Does not the fact that the Minister made a statement to the effect that the Government can wait no longer indicate that it is urgent? It is

definitely and certainly a highly controversial matter of public importance, because the Minister has made things far worse than they were before.

Mr. Speaker: The mere fact that a Minister makes a statement does not make the matter urgent within the Standing Order. The hon. Member himself said that the preliminary paragraph was an ambiguous statement. It is a very general statement, and nothing in it brings it within the Standing Order.

Mr. Wyatt: On a point of Order. Surely, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister chose this afternoon to make the statement, and if you gave him permission to do so, it was because the matter was urgent and so that he could make it before the House rose, otherwise you, Sir, would not have allowed it and he would not have made the statement. Surely, it must be urgent to get this matter clarified before the House rises. As the consultations which the right hon. Gentleman described are to take place before the House meets again, it will be too late when we return in October to have any influence on whatever the Government do, because the preliminary steps prescribed will have been taken.

Mr. Speaker: There are degrees of urgency. Because it is proper to make a statement before the House rises, that does not necessarily bring it within the Standing Order. On the statement, I have formed the definite view that nothing will happen until the House comes back, and it is my view, alas, which matters. I do not think it urgent in the sense of Standing Order No. 9, and I cannot add anything to what I have said.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I appreciate your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but may I put a question to the Minister? Can he tell us when it is proposed to introduce the new constitution?

Mr. Hopkinson: These negotiations and discussions are bound to take time, and my own impression is that it will be some months before the new constitution can be introduced. But the Governor will be getting to work on it and making his plans at once. He will be going forward during the summer. I am afraid that I cannot give any definite date.

Mr. Griffiths: Can we have an assurance from the Minister that no


irrevocable step will be taken in this matter before the House resumes in October?

Mr. Hopkinson: I am certainly willing to give that assurance, but, in the meantime, I would not want operations to be held up. The new constitution will be drawn up, and I hope that we shall be in a position to lay it before the House in the form of a White Paper, or otherwise, when the House reassembles.

Mr. Wyatt: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member still wishing to discuss the submission made under Standing Order No. 9?

Mr. Wyatt: What I want to discuss, Mr. Speaker, is something which arises out of the Minister's last two answers, because he has made it perfectly clear that a constitution is actually to be drawn up between now and when we meet again in October. Although the constitution may not be put into force, it will very probably be brought to this House in such a form that we cannot then materially alter it. Does not that, Mr. Speaker, make it an urgent matter for discussion before we rise?

Mr. Speaker: It is quite clear that there is nothing which brings it within the Standing Order. That is the only matter with which I am concerned, and I would call the attention of the House to the hour.

Mr. Driberg: On a point of order. This statement is so important, and, in our view, so outrageous and hypocritical that some of us intend to initiate a debate on it on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. Alport: Is not the use of the word "hypocritical" an unparliamentary word, Mr. Speaker, and should it not be withdrawn?

Mr. Speaker: I think that to imply that an hon. Member of this House is a hypocrite is distinctly out of order, if that was the intention of the hon. Member. The hon. Member should, I think, refrain from using language of that sort.

Mr. Driberg: I am perfectly willing to withdraw the word, but may I say how deplorable it is that the hon. Member opposite should be unconscious of the hypocritical nature of the statement.

Mr. Bevan: May I make a respectful submission to you in respect of your Ruling just now, Mr. Speaker? It is, of course, correct that a statement has been made, and if the negotiations are to continue, there is no urgency. The Minister, when he made his statement, did refer to a number of conditions which are to be precedent to the new constitution. They change the nature of the previous undertaking in order to provide a majority of nominated members as against elected members, and the statement was made that in no circumstances can Cyprus look forward to full self-government.
These are two statements of the utmost urgency, and they are to govern the discussions with the Governor and those with whom he is to discuss the constitution. May I respectfully suggest that they are statements of such very great importance that, even if Standing Order No. 9 cannot be invoked, it is impossible to allow the Government to obtain the Consolidated Fund Bill without having a debate upon them?

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with me.

PERSONAL STATEMENT

Mr. John Rodgers: I understood that it was the custom of the House, if any hon. Members wish to refer to another hon. Member personally in the course of the debate, to give notice of their intention to do so. Yesterday, during the consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Television Bill, the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) made certain statements about a firm with which I am connected. Had I had notice of the intention of the hon. Member, I would have corrected him immediately; although I was not in the Chamber at the time, I was attending a Committee upstairs. His remarks were as follows:
I am told that the first six months of commercial television programmes for this country are already in the vaults of Messrs. J. Walter Thompson and Co., in London. I hope that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) will be here later to deny that. Perhaps it is a little exaggerated, but it applies to a very large proportion of the programmes. They are already canned, they have been shown


to American audiences and they are hiding in the vaults of that largely American-controlled advertising concern in London."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1954; Vol. 531, c. 278.]
The firm in question, first, has not brought a single programme from America for use on the I.T.A. stations when they start; secondly, it has not produced itself or through any other organisation any programme in this country for broadcasting through I.T.A. stations; and thirdly, it has no vaults in which to hide anything.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: We are very glad to have that assurance that this American-controlled advertising agency has, in fact, had no control of programmes for commercial television in this country. As regards—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a personal statement, and it is not debatable. I thought that, perhaps, the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) would wish to make some—s
—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Mayhew: As I understand, the only personal element was the question whether I was in order or not in referring to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) when he was not present in the House. I am prepared to be guided by you on that point, Mr. Speaker, but, as far as I am aware, there is no rule to say that one may not refer to an hon. Member who is not present.

Mr. Charles Royle: Do we understand that it is out of order for any hon. Member to refer to a firm with which another hon. Member is associated?

Mr. Speaker: The statement, which I have read in HANSARD, did mention the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) by name, and associated him with it. The hon. Member has denied it, and we ought to leave the matter there. There is no point of order in all this at all. It is customary if one hon. Member intends to refer to another to inform him. It is not a matter of order at all.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE (RETIREMENT)

Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that I have received a letter from Sir Frederic William Metcalfe, K.C.B., Clerk of the House, as follows:

28th July, 1954.

"Sir,

I have the honour to inform you that, after thirty-five years in the service of this House, I desire as from the end of this month to resign the patent of Clerk of the House of Commons which it has been my proud privilege to hold for the last six years.

During my twenty-four years at the Table I have seen many events memorable in the history of Parliament and of our country, and owing to the chances of war I have sat at no fewer than five different Tables of the House. I count myself fortunate to have been Clerk of the House at the first sitting in this new Chamber in 1950 when many Speakers and Officials from Parliaments overseas visited Westminster to take part in our ceremonies.

It is with great regret that I leave the service of the House and I wish to express to you, Sir, to all occupants of the Chair and to all Members of the House in this and previous Parliaments, my deep gratitude for the kindness and courtesy which I have always experienced. The friendship and loyalty of all my colleagues has made my work happy, and I am confident that they will continue to serve this honourable House with the devotion that we all feel for our ancient Parliamentary institutions.

I am, Sir,

Your obedient Servant,

FREDERIC W. METCALFE."

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Crookshank: I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that we have heard with great regret the terms of the letter which you, Mr. Speaker, have just read. I therefore give notice that, in accordance with precedent, a Motion will be proposed tomorrow expressing our thanks to Sir Frederic Metcalfe for the long service which he has rendered to this honourable House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Slaughter of Animals (Amendment) Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crookshank.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

CYPRUS (CONSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS)

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: If I am causing any inconvenience to my right hon. and hon. Friends, who have not anticipated that there would be a debate at this time on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, I regret very much the necessity for doing so. My excuse is that we have had sprung upon us without any warning, just on the eve of the long Summer Recess, one of the most extraordinary and dangerous statements that have ever emanated even from that Tory Government opposite.
During the replies to the many pointed questions put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), it seemed as though, whether through not fully understanding what he was being asked or for some other reason, the responsible Minister was attempting, semi-obtrusively, to revise the Statute of Westminster. We have always understood that self-government means self-government, including, as my right hon. Friend has said, the right to opt out or to contract out of the Commonwealth. This happened in the case of Burma. We may or may not regret the fact that Burma chose to sever her link with the Commonwealth and to become an independent sovereign State, but nobody in this House questioned Burma's right to do that.
Now the Minister who made this extraordinary statement on the question of Cyprus has enunciated an entirely new interpretation and application of this doctrine of self-government and the right to contract out. The right hon. Gentleman says that there are some territories in the Commonwealth which can never

expect to have complete self-government. This, surely, is the abandonment of a general principle of colonial development which we had thought was common to both sides of the House, even though we on this side have always done our best to press it forward rather more urgently and speedily than hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. We thought that it was generally accepted, as a principle, that the various Colonial Territories should be assisted as speedily as possible towards responsible self-government, and always hitherto self-government has been taken to include, under the Statute of Westminster and the ordinary arrangements for Dominion status, the right to contract out.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Would the hon. Member quote the precedent or authority to show how he arrives at that conclusion? I do not interpret it at all as he does in regard to Australia, New Zealand or such countries. If he had chapter and verse or some authority for what he is asserting I should be obliged to him for giving it.

Mr. Driberg: I am obliged to the hon. Member, but I do not think that he can have been listening to what I said: I quoted the example of Burma.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May we ask the Leader of the House whether he can send for a member of the Government who has some responsibility in this matter? Notice was given that this matter would be raised on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): That is not a point of order.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): That has been done, but I did not understand that this subject was coming on in this way and my right hon. Friend did not. A message has been sent and I apologise. Knowing that steel was to be the subject to be taken at once, I suppose my right hon. Friend assumed that another opportunity would be taken to debate Cyprus, as this is not the only opportunity available for the purpose.

Mr. Driberg: I am much obliged to the Leader of the House. I see how the misunderstanding arose, but I think that


the right hon. Gentleman could at least have waited to see what happened when the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill was proposed before rushing out to his tea. I do not blame him for wanting his tea, after those extraordinary exchanges across the Table of the House; but he might just have waited till the Question was proposed.
Before the supplementary questions and answers were reached, the Minister had already announced some rather startling provisions in this new constitution which, apparently, is to be foisted on the people of Cyprus. I cannot think why the Minister was so optimistic as to suppose that they are any more likely to accept this new constitution than they have been in the past six years to accept the 1948 constitution which was offered to them. The same conditions still apply, and it seems equally unlikely that anyone will co-operate—except a few stooges, if I may use that vulgarism in this context.
However, in telling us about the new constitution, the Minister made it quite clear that it would not be anything in the nature of a dangerously democratic constitution—nothing like the Constitution that was originally given to the people of British Guiana, for instance, which had to be reversed so hurriedly when the people of British Guiana took advantage of it in their own interests and against the interests of the City of London.
The Minister said, as I understood him, that there would be more nominated than elected members in the legislature. Perhaps when he replies to what I am afraid may be a rather protracted debate, he will tell us exactly what proportions of nominated and of elected membership are projected in this constitution?
I ought perhaps to explain why, in the natural heat of the moment, when I was announcing, as I hoped, to the Minister—although he did not understand what I tried to say—that we would raise this matter at once on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, I used the word to which exception was taken by an hon. Member opposite. I said that the statement had been, as I thought, hypocritical. That seemed to me an appropriate word, because it really is rather too obvious when a Minister announces what purports to be a great advance in democracy, a

new constitution and all that, on the very same day as the withdrawal from Egypt is announced, and everyone knows that the base in Cyprus is to be very considerably enlarged and that the only real interest of the Government Front Bench and hon. Members opposite in the welfare of the people of Cyprus is that they should provide a convenient, peaceable and co-operative base.
That is the truth of the matter and that is why I said that all this talk about progress and self-government was hypocritical, when, in the next breath, the Minister was saying to them, as it were, "Of course, we are not going to let you have proper self-government ever, because you are strategically too important to our interests."
When the Foreign Secretary was making his announcement about Egypt a little earlier, he made a very wise remark, with which all of us on this side of the House would concur, about the necessity for having the "consent and cooperation" of the population around a base. If we have a large base in a foreign land we must have a friendly people around it; otherwise, we shall not be able to operate it effectively, as we have seen over the last year or two, particularly in the Suez Canal Zone. I would seriously ask the Minister what consent and cooperation he expects to get from the people of Cyprus in the operation of the base that is to be developed there? What consent and co-operation does he expect if this new constitution is to be foisted on them without any real democratic test of their desire for it?
The Minister knows as well as everyone else knows—if I may use that offensive word again, it is one of the many hypocrisies of public life in this country —that 90 per cent. of the people of Cyprus, perhaps ill-advisedly or foolishly, want Enosis, or union with Greece. Personally, I have never been able quite to understand why any progressive or Left-wing Cypriot should want to come under the control of a Government of the nature of the present Greek Government; but that is what they prefer. As has often been said, people prefer self-government to good government: it may even be that the people of Cyprus—foolishly, as we think—prefer Greek Government to good government.
That, however, is their affair and, to refer to hypocrisy yet again, it makes absolute hypocritical nonsense of the so-called Potomac Charter to interpret it in the sophistical way in which the Minister interpreted it when a Question was asked him by one of my hon. Friends. No one reading the Potomac Charter or the Atlantic Charter would realise that there were all these reservations and qualifications and that the distinguished signatories really meant, "We are going to give self-government some day to some parts of the various Empires of the world as and when they deserve it, when they can show they will be good boys; but some of them, even if they want it, will never be entitled to self-government at all."

Mr. Rees-Davies: The hon. Member is saying that self-government in the sense in which he invites the House to construe it is the right for a people to "go it alone." Is he aware that the issue of Enosis is whether they shall belong to Greece or Britain and that in either case they would not get the self-government which the hon. Member wants? It is purely a question of sovereignty in that sense, Britain or Greece, and it is obvious that they want Britain.

Mr. Driberg: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for interrupting me again. Each of his interruptions makes it possible for me to say something in, I hope, simple enough terms for him to understand; and I can clarify it more and more each time the hon. Member invites me to do so.
Self-government, surely, has always been taken to imply and include self-determination. Self-government or independence, as in the case of the Sudan—to quote another instance from more recent history than Burma—means that a people which achieves its independence has a perfect right to say, "We are going to be on our own, a sovereign Power"—like Burma; or, "We are going to remain within the Commonwealth"—perhaps under a special new arrangement, as in the case of India or Pakistan or Ceylon. Or, again, there is a third possibility: an independent people, on achieving self-government, might say, "We will come to a special arrangement with another power"—such as Greece.
When we were discussing the Sudan, before Sudanese sovereignty had been

achieved, it was always envisaged by this House, by Government spokesmen and everyone else, that it must be left entirely to the discretion of the Sudan, after independence had been achieved, whether they wished to apply to join the Commonwealth, or whether they wished to make a special treaty arrangement with Egypt, or whether they wished to remain completely independent. I hope I have made my point clear.
I do not want to take up undue time. I have just launched the subject in a rather imperfect and haphazard way. But it seemed to me that there were such dangerous implications in what the Minister said that the matter had to be cleared up at once, in case he was simply blundering, so that the blunder could be corrected overnight before the news travelled too widely in Cyprus, from Famagusta to Nicosia, from Larnaca to Limassol, through the length and breadth of that island which some of us know and love—that small and beautiful island whose most engaging and likeable people are surely, at this time of day, entitled to a better deal and truer democracy than they are apparently going to get from this Tory Government.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I feel that it is incumbent that a reply should be made from this side of the House to the remarks of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) who has chosen, in accordance with his rights, to raise this matter on the Consolidated Fund instead of continuing with the proposed debate on steel. The very few observations which I make must, of necessity, also be haphazard and I will be brief with regard to them.
I think it is perfectly plain that at this moment it was incumbent on the Government to make their position quite clear with regard to the sovereignty of Cyprus. I would agree with what was said from the benches opposite that this must be to some extent related to the present situation which has arisen in Egypt. My beliefs on that aspect are, of course, well known. About 30 or 40 years ago my own father was a judge in Cyprus and during the many years when he was in a judicial capacity there Enosis, as it is known, was pressed—the desire of some members of the Greek community to be returned to, and to become part of, the sovereign State of Greece, because that


is the point—was then uppermost in the minds of the people. That was 40 years ago and it has remained in the minds of many of the Greek orthodox leaders for the whole of that period.
It is interesting to note that it is only since the troubles arose at the time of Abadan, and the troubles which have arisen over the situation in Egypt, that this question has been brought to the forefront of political feeling in Cyprus and Greece. It is in that light that we must look at it. There never was any great enforced demand for Enosis or to go back to join the Greek people, that is to say, a desire by the Greek people in Cyprus to be affiliated with Greece. They have no history or traditional background nor have they ever been part of Greece at any time.
It arises, by reason of the political propaganda at the present time in Cyprus, in two ways. First of all, there is the Communist propaganda, and if the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Maldon were to take effect in the near future and the Greek natives of Cyprus were to have the right to determine what other minorities would have to do, the result would be to play straight into the hands of the Communists. They would merely be supporting the views of the Greek Orthodox leaders—Makorios, and others—who were entirely against the most restrained and modern leaders in that part of the world.
If, at this stage, it is not made plain that we intend to remain in the immediate future and be assured of our sovereignty in Cyprus as in the past—as it has been made plain today by the Government—there will be the greatest danger of immediate trouble both by the Communists and also, I regret to say, by the Greek orthodox leaders, who are trying to introduce Enosis at this stage because they feel that at a time when we are reaching certain arrangements with Egypt it is an opportune time to press home their attack.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has stated that the agitation is, in effect, an agitation by the Greek Church leaders, and that it is being pushed forward by them against the responsible expression of orthodox opinion. Can the hon. Gentleman say

who it is who is expressing a contrary sense to the Greek Church?

Mr. Rees-Davies: In the first place, I have no doubt whatever that to a large extent—because although it is a minority it is very extensive—Turkish opinion throughout the whole of Cyprus is quite clearly in favour of British sovereignty, as opposed to a take-over by Greece. Furthermore, the European community there, which is extensive and to whose welfare the Minister referred this afternoon—

Mrs. Lena Jeger: May I ask the hon. Member—

Mr. Rees-Davies: answer a question—

Mrs. Jeger: Are not the Cypriots Europeans?

Mr. Rees-Davies: —are Clearly not against it. That is a second volume of opinion.
Thirdly—and this is the point I was making for the hon. Gentleman—there is no tradition or background of any kind of Greek sovereignty there. Therefore, if they be of racial Greek descent in Cyprus they have no more right to contend that this island should be returned to Greece than an Italian who comes to this country—or a Greek, or any person who becomes a British subject—has the right to say that Britain should go back to Greece.

Mr. Driberg: The hon. Gentleman interrupted me twice to ask for an explanation. What I was arguing was that they should have at any rate some independence and self-government, or that they should choose what they wanted to do; whether they wanted to stay in the Commonwealth, or go in with Greece or remain as they are now. That is all I was saying, and it seems to me that the hon. Member is evading that point.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I think that the question put by the hon. Member for Maldon might be answered in this way. At this moment the vital question which must be made plain is that our sovereignty there shall be supreme. When, in the future, we get a democratic Government established, the supposed self-government—I am using that word because I disagree with Enosis, and it is thought that self-government of the people could be


possible even within the British Commonwealth—it may be that in the years ahead a claim for the right of self-determination might arise.
I may be wrong, but in my view that is not self-government. The right of self-determination would not arise for some years and, as I understood it, what the Government were saying was that this was the right moment to state two facts: first, that our sovereignty in future shall remain as in the past; and, secondly, that we shall carry out certain reforms although they may not receive the support of the two main parties, the Communist Party and the Nationalist Party.
I entirely agree. I do not believe that we should support anything which would lead to further penetration by the Communists into the Colony and I do not believe that we should accept the arguments of the Nationalist Party, because I do not believe that the Greek Orthodox leaders are doing what is right. They are misleading the people of Cyprus in order to capture a small island for the sovereignty of Greece and not for the benefit of the people.

5.1 p.m.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: It must be a matter of regret to all of us on this side of the House, and even to some hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the House is going into Recess and giving this last message to the people of Cyprus for some time. It will be many months before we can discuss the matter again, many months during which there will have to be difficult negotiations in Cyprus with the Cypriot leaders, and it seems most unfortunate that the negotiations should have to go on at a time when the House is not sitting. We have had to seize spontaneously on this opportunity, our only one for many weeks, to put a different point of view.
We could have a very long and interesting debate on the history and ethnography of Cyprus, but I do not think that that is the business of the House in the present situation. For many years we have not taken the question of Enosis sufficiently seriously. I should like to remind the House of the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir Winston was Under-Secretary at the Colonial Office. He said to the Legislative Council in Cyprus:

I think it is only natural that the Cypriot people who are of Greek descent should regard their incorporation with what may be called their mother country as an ideal to be earnestly, devoutly and fervently cherished. Such a feeling is an example of the patriotic devotion which so nobly characterises the Greek nation.

Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: When was that said?

Mrs. Jeger: That was said to the Legislative Council in 1907. I think that the right hon. Gentleman's words are eternally true.
Moreover, there was a period when the Government took a slightly more sympathetic view of the question. That was during the First World War, when in 1915 Cyprus was offered to Greece by the British Government in return for the immediate entry of Greece into the war. At that time Greece was not able to enter the war, but she did so a short time afterwards. However, the offer for the union with Cyprus was not renewed by the then Government. Since then the people of the island have certainly not decreased in any way in their interest and enthusiasm for what they regard as their proper destiny.
Hon. Members take a very wrong view when they suppose that this is just a Communist plot. It may be that when a referendum is held the result is not always what one would wish, but that is no reason for discrediting referenda and imagining that they are inspired from a certain source. It was a matter of great regret that on the last occasion when Cyprus was discussed in another place one noble Lord said that the result in favour of Enosis showed that the country was Russian dominated. Lord Winster said:
I never expected anything else. To my mind, the plebiscite ran absolutely according to form. …
He spoke of it as:
… following the best Russian example—or the example of countries that are Russian dominated …" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 23rd February, 1954; Vol. 185, c. 1078.]
As long as there is this attitude among Members of either House the Cypriots will not enter into discussions about their future with very co-operative feelings. We have plenty of evidence of widespread support for the movement. In answer to a Question which I asked in the House today the Minister had to admit that support for Enosis was widespread among the people of the island.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I do not want to dispute what the hon. Lady has said, but I should like to know whether her experience accords with mine. Has she found that the large numbers of people who come from Cyprus to this country are extremely proud of what they describe as their British citizenship? I suppose that many Cypriots come to her constituency as they do to mine and I should like to know whether her experience is the same as mine.

Mrs. Jeger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have certainly had considerable experience. About 10,000 Cypriots have come from their sunny island to the smoke and chill of St. Pancras in search of work in the back kitchens of Soho and Bloomsbury. I am sure that the Minister knows that I have tried to assess the viewpoint of Cypriots in this country and I find complete agreement among them. It may be that there is something peculiar about Cypriots who live in St. Pancras, but as they happen to form the vast bulk of Cypriots in this country it would be wrong for me to say other than that there seems to be complete support for Enosis, and that not one Cypriot in St. Pancras has ever put a different point of view to me. It may be that the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) will be able to bear out what I say.
On the question of the plebiscite it should be remembered that that was taken when the Ethnarchy asked the Governor to carry out the referendum and the Governor refused. Therefore, when the Ethnarchy carried out a plebiscite with the result that 95 per cent. of the Greek population voted for union with Greece, it seems a little unfair for us to say now that there must have been something wrong with the referendum. Surely the answer is that if we were not prepared then to carry out such a referendum and to give the people an opportunity to express their opinion we should do it now as a matter of great urgency.
It is a matter of great puzzlement and confusion to the people of Cyprus who regard themselves essentially as Europeans with a long tradition of culture. It is a serious blow to their pride that the people of the Sudan whom they regard as perhaps a little less forward, a little less educated, should have been given the opportunity to express their point of view

on their constitutional future when the opportunity is denied to the people of Cyprus. This must be confusing to our friends in the island.
Now we are in a serious situation. As we know, the Greek Government are raising the question before the United Nations. It is a matter on which we must ask the responsible Ministers to take action, treating it as an emergency. The Greek Government will certainly not hesitate to raise the question before the United Nations. The Minister today referred to the strategic importance of Cyprus. The Greek Government have already made it perfectly clear that, as a member of N.A.T.O., they are prepared to offer full facilities to other N.A.T.O. Powers, including of course Great Britain, in any strategic purposes which we might work out together.
I should have thought that from a strategic point of view the chance of making the best use of Cyprus would have been enhanced had that policy been carried out in concert with the Greek Government, following the wishes of the majority of the Cypriot people, and not carried out in a situation in which feelings are exacerbated and in which the local population can again put us in the unfortunate position which has arisen in Egypt. I recognise that there are constitutional differences between the position in Cyprus and that in Egypt, but the common denominator is a hostile population.
The crux of the question is whether we believe not merely in self-government but also in self-determination by the peoples of the Commonwealth. We have to accept that our view may not always be right and may not always prevail. Many hon. Members regret what has happened in Burma and there may be some who believe that a mistake has been made in the Sudan, but surely the governing principle, in this day and age, of any happy or successful Commonwealth Government must be the acceptance of the supreme power of the will of the people themselves.
The Cypriots have expressed this point of view. They refused to co-operate when a constitution was offered them a few years ago. I am informed that since that time there has been some increase in the support for Enosis, and it therefore seems that the chance of obtaining


the co-operation of any representative Cypriots, other than purely nominated "stooges." must be much less now than it was a few years ago.
I am afraid that the hope expressed rather glibly this afternoon that all would go well in Cyprus is one which will not be fulfilled. The urgency which has been given to this question by events in Suez makes it all the more important that we should have a further statement this afternoon, before the House rises, which will help the Cypriot people to see the Government's intention. A further statement should be made on which talks can be held, because nothing said so far this afternoon by the Government could possibly form the basis of any useful or progressive talks to bring about happiness in Cyprus.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: The hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger) referred to a speech made by the Prime Minister in 1907 in which he recognised the natural aspirations among Hellenes in various parts of the world for unity with Greece and, in particular, the aspirations of Cyprus, where he was speaking at the time. It may be relevant to mention that since 1907 Greece, for which country we have the greatest admiration—a country with which we have a long tradition of friendship—has, unfortunately, been involved in no fewer than five wars. We have seen the tragedy through which she has passed.
It may be said that if, in spite of these difficulties, many of the people of Cyprus are anxious to unite with Greece, then surely the feeling must be very strong indeed. The House would be unwise not to take account of the great sentimental urge for Hellenistic unity. But let us see where that urge has led the Greek people in the past. I believe that the proportion of Greek people in Izmir before the Greco-Turkish War was as great as it is in Cyprus today and that some Hellenistic sentimental urge led to a great tragedy. As a result, many Greeks have been expatriated from Izmir.
I wonder whether those Cypriots who live in the hon. Lady's constituency—and they are her constituents—have given full thought not only to what their own position would be, but also to what would be

the position of Cyprus. I am not referring to the view adopted by the hon. Lady, because I recognise the altruistic nature of her speech. Have these people given full thought not only to what their position would be, but also to what would be the position of Cyprus, a territory for which we are responsible, if the Cypriots were to achieve that union which they are being urged to seek?

Mr. Crossman: Would the hon. Member not regard them as adults, able to make up their own minds? If he disagrees with them, does he not think that he should let them decide for themselves?

Mr. Macpherson: I remember listening a few years ago, when I first came into the House, to the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) speaking about plebiscites and referenda, with particular reference to Scotland, and saying that in his view a plebiscite was never a satisfactory way of determining a matter of this description.
We should be very careful of this sentimental urge. One of the great troubles has been that the opposite point of view has not been sufficiently expressed in Cyprus. One of the reasons for which I welcomed my right hon. Friend's statement today is that it provides some possibility for another point of view to be expressed. We must remember what the history of Cyprus has been since the war. First of all, we had the great development of Communism in the island. At that time there were many Communists in Grece, and the Communists in Cyprus were keen on the idea of the union of Cyprus with Greece.
What happened? An attempt was made to outbid them. A party of the Right arose in an attempt to outbid the Communists in Cyprus so that we now have two extreme points of view. I welcomed my right hon. Friend's statement, because it gives some hope that more moderate counsels will prevail.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: How does the hon. Member think that the other party, by which I presume he means the Greek Orthodox Church, could outbid the Communists by standing for Enosis unless Enosis was what the people of Cyprus wanted?

Mr. Macpherson: I have already indicated that it is very easy to play on


sentiment on this matter. Politics is not only a question of sentiment; it also involves a responsibility for the lives of the people of Cyprus and for their future well-being.
The reason why I am glad that my right hon. Friend has made his statement is that by making it crystal clear that the question of sovereignty cannot arise at present and removing the issue from the field of politics he is making it clear that there will be a possibility for the people to work gradually towards self-government and of stating their real interests. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] My right hon. Friend did not say the opposite. He spoke of working towards self-government and this was the first step.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Did not the right hon. Gentleman put two limitations? It is true that he said that he was taking the first step towards self-government, but did he not make it very clear that there never will be a last step, that there will not be any change of sovereignty and that that is ours for ever? Did he not also say that if it should ever happen, which God forbid, that the majority of the people of Cyprus should be Communists we would interfere by force to prevent their having the form of government which they desired?

Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend certainly never said anything of that kind. I never heard the word "force" used.

Mr. Hopkinson: I said, first of all, that this was a first step towards self-government, which we hoped would go forward with the co-operation of the people of Cyprus. I was questioned about sovereignty and I said that this did not involve any question of change of sovereignty and that that was something which we did not contemplate. I said that there were certain territories in which the question of the exact degree of independence which a Colony could achieve would depend upon its circumstances. [An HON. MEMBER: "Malta."] Malta is one territory with almost the same population and which is not a territory which can be self-governing.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman makes a speech now he cannot make one again on Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. Hopkinson: I was asked questions, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, which, with your permission, I should just like to answer. I was asked about the question of the establishment of a Communist régime. I repeated what was said at the time of the British Guiana incident last autumn that a Communist régime would not be tolerated, because it is a negation of independence and self-government.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is not that exactly what I said?

Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Member made play with the fact that force would be used to prevent it. We are anxious to get a constitution going in which such force would have no place.
The House should really regard the situation as it is in Cyprus at the moment. We have these two extreme parties on either side, each competing on a sentimental basis for the support of the Cypriots but with neither having any responsibility for the government of the country. Surely the Government's proposals are the right thing to do when there are two parties of this kind. Surely we do not imagine that the whole country supports Enosis. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] We know, for example, that the Turks take the opposite view.
Let us give the opportunity for opinion to be expressed freely through a democratic constitution. Surely, by these proposals we are taking the first step towards achieving that. The House should welcome this first step and the opportunity to have these matters freely discussed in an assembly in Cyprus, instead of the present non-co-operation of the two extreme parties which is exercising the greatest moral suasion on the people. We know the Communist methods and we know how the Orthodox Church is refusing to marry and baptise people until they receive full support in this matter.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Can the hon. Member give a single instance of that happening?

Mr. Macpherson: I cannot quote a definite instance just now, but surely it is common knowledge. This has been reported again and again. It is well known. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Even if this suasion is less than I represent it to be, surely it is right at present to get


going a constitution in which various opinions can be expressed. I hope very much that my right hon. Friend's hopes will be realised and that instead of refusing to co-operate, as the parties have done so far, the parties will now enter into talks with the Governor, and that there will be an opportunity to take the first step. We should all welcome this first step towards self-government. It would be wrong not to take it.
It may be said that the proposed constitution is not an advance on the previous one, but suppose one had elections with only two main parties. One never can tell, but they might combine. The Orthodox Party and the Communists might combine for a specific purpose, but surely once we made it quite clear that sovereignty is not to be parted with at the present time, it would immediately result in a deadlock. Therefore, it would be absolutely absurd to establish that constitution now. We know that other opinions exist in Cyprus. Let us give the opportunity of having them expressed. That would be one of the effects of getting an Assembly going. I welcome this step and I hope that the House will also welcome it.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I do not think that anyone in this House can be under any misapprehension as to the importance of the statements which have been made by the Government on Cyprus. Whatever views can be taken of it, something has been said this afternoon which will affect very materially not only the lives of the people of Cyprus but the security of the Eastern Mediterranean and our relations with the Greek people for a long time to come. I only hope that this is not a further instance of the party opposite doing the kind of thing which it did at the time of the Boston Tea Party and refusing to recognise a strong feeling which has been held over a long period of years by a people who hitherto have avoided violence for the most part.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) is the last person that I would ever have expected to have to accuse of laying himself open to a charge of being presumptuous, but he presumed to ask whether the Cypriot people had really considered the position that they would be in if they left the British Commonwealth. This is an adult people.

It is a far more adult people than many others whom we have encouraged towards self-government. However much we may imagine that their material well-being will be less good if they leave the British Commonwealth, I do not think that we have any right to say therefore that we ought to do what is in our power to put a brake upon their march in the direction in which they want to go, namely, towards self-determination.

Mr. Macpherson: Surely that is contrary to what we are doing. We find that there has been no response to the previous offer of a constitution and we are now taking a first step. So far from that being a brake, it is an encouragement.

Mr. Mallalieu: We have found that there was no response in the direction of co-operation under the first constitution which was offered; and now we offer another one which is in no way better than the first.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: Worse.

Mr. Mallalieu: That is putting on a brake, considering that there has been a lapse of time, a passage of years as the Prime Minister so often expresses it, between the offer of the first constitution and this offer. We should have offered before now a proper solution which, if the Government had not had its head in the sand, would have been the one most likely to further not only the interests of the Cypriots but our own.
I asked the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), who unfortunately is not in his place at the moment, what were the other expressions of Cypriot opinion upon which he was relying when he said that the Greek Church had been furthering this agitation for a long time and nobody else had; and that the leaders of the Greek Church had been furthering this agitation in defiance of expressions in a contrary sense in Cyprus. All he could answer was that the Turks and the non-Greek Europeans had expressed those opinions. That may be so, but from the best opinions I can get —and I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong on this point —80 per cent. of the people of Cyprus are Greek and 96 per cent. of that 80 per cent. voted in favour of Enosis, or union


with Greece, in the plebiscite which has been somewhat smeared by the party opposite.
Therefore, it is surely not correct to say that there has been any substantial expression of Cypriot opinion in a sense contrary to Enosis. If I am wrong, I ask the Minister to enlighten us on the point when he replies. If there has been any responsible expression of Cypriot opinion against Enosis in the last 20 years, would he give particulars of it? It would be surprising if there were none, but it will not be enough to say that there has been some.
We want to know what particular expressions there have been in a sense contrary to Enosis. In my submission, there has been none worth considering in face of the expressions of Cypriots in favour of Enosis in their Press, their speeches and in their personal contact with us in this country. Is there, for example, a single newspaper published in Cyprus, whether in Greek or in English, which is against Enosis?

Mr. W. T. Aitken: There is one paper. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the "Cyprus Mail," which has held forth against Enosis on some occasions.

Mr. Mallalieu: I could not accept that instance. I am familiar with the "Cyprus Mail," and to say that it has held forth substantially against Enosis would not be accurate.

Mr. Aitken: If the hon. Gentleman had read the paper very carefully, he could not talk like that. I get the paper almost every week and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I could produce for his benefit leading articles attacking Enosis in a way that I think none of us here would like to do in public.

Mr. Mallalieu: I presume—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I would point out to the two hon. Gentlemen that this is a Second Reading debate. We are not in Committee.

Mr. Mallalieu: I shall not continue the point, much as I should like to. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet also said that it was improper for us to speak about Cyprus being returned to Greece.

In a sense that is true, as Cyprus has never been under Greek sovereignty. It is wrong strictly to talk about returning Cyprus to Greek sovereignty. It would not, of course, be wrong to talk about returning the Colonial Secretary to the City, because he was there once, he was a City man always, and doubtless will be again in a few days or a few weeks. It is contrary to the strict interpretation of the words to talk about returning Cyprus to Greek sovereignty, because there never was Greek sovereignty until comparatively recent times when the Turks were turned out of Greece. Since then the territories occupied by Greek people have come under Greek sovereignty. Cyprus is the last one to remain outside. It is not just an agitation dating from the time of the Abadan crisis, as the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet said.
The hon. Member said that this agitation was started then, by the leaders of the Greek Church. Has he forgotten what took place in 1931 in the island; what his own supposed leader the present Prime Minister said in 1907 about Cyprus; what Gladstone said in 1897, which was that he hoped that Cyprus would become a Greek island in the near future? This agitation has been going on ever since there was such a thing as Greek sovereignty. We should be most unwise in our own interests to bury our heads in the sand and to refuse to recognise the trend of events in the Eastern Mediterranean.
As far as we can tell from the Government's statement, we are hoping increasingly to use Cyprus as some kind of base for our defensive arrangements in the Eastern Mediterranean. How can it be supposed that our efforts in that direction will be furthered unless we win the co-operation of the Cypriot people? What hope is there of our doing this unless we make towards them the gesture of granting the self-determination for which they are asking?
It is said that for security reasons we must hold on to the island of Cyprus. Is it not a fact that the Greek Government have openly stated that they will give us all facilities for defence in Cyprus, or in any other part of Greek territory if we will allow the Cypriots to follow their own passionate desire to come under Greek sovereignty? How can it be said that we are in any way furthering our own strategic interests in the Eastern


Mediterranean by hanging on to this island, dog-in-the-manger like, against the wishes of 80 per cent. of the population? Should we not be seeking rather to gain their co-operation and to maintain the friendship which our country has traditionally had for the Greek people, for whom we certainly express admiration? How can it possibly be said that we have our own interests in mind in refusing the legitimate aspirations of the Cypriot people?
We need not only the co-operation of the Cypriots but of our friends the Greeks. I hope that the Government will think again on this matter and will not just bring up a rehash of the old constitution. I hope they will take the bold step which is necessary to secure our interests in the Eastern Mediterranean and will give the Cypriot people what they have been asking for, mainly peacefully, for so long.

5.39 p.m.

Mr. W. T. Aitken: It seems that hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House have been stampeded into this attitude of Enosis in the same way as the Ethnarchy have stampeded the people of Cyprus. I can give the House three good reasons why we are in Cyprus and why we should stay there.
The first reason is security. I do not think anybody can possibly argue, considering the kind of world in which we live today, that we could be secure with a base on a small island under a weak and unstable Power. Anybody who thinks that political conditions in Greece are such that Communism could not prevail at any time in the next year or two is not very well informed about conditions there. No base on a small island can possibly be as secure as a base over which we hold complete sovereignty. I do not think anybody can possibly argue against that.
The argument which is so often made about a base in the midst of a hostile population seems to me to have no validity whatsoever in the case of Cyprus, because the people in Cyprus are not hostile to Great Britain. Anybody who has visited the island, as I have done, knows perfectly well that the people of Cyprus are anything but anti-British. In spite of the intensity and fervour with

which the Enosis campaign has been conducted, the people of Cyprus are still very pro-British, and the Enosis campaign has, as one hon. Member said, been running since 1878, and even before that under the Turks, although not so strongly. The base cannot be secure unless it remains under our sovereignty.
We also have to consider the welfare of the people who live in Cyprus. There is no doubt that the material welfare of the people who live in Cyprus is better than the welfare of the people who live in Greece, and infinitely better than the welfare of the people who live on the Island of Rhodes. The Island of Rhodes was handed over to the Greeks at the end of the war. It was under Italian sovereignty before that. Many people of Rhodes are in a condition of semi-starvation. They are trying to emigrate to Cyprus, and a number have already emigrated there. They have come to Cyprus because conditions in Rhodes are so bad.
The average Greek-speaking Cypriot will admit that he is better off, and will say that he is in favour of Enosis. But if he is told that tomorrow the island will join a political union with Greece, what happens? I can tell hon. Members what happened in the case of one Cypriot whom I know. I shall not give his name, for reasons which will be understood. The moment the Greeks announced that they were going to raise this matter with the United Nations, he moved his money out of Cyprus into England. Those things would seem to be in complete contradiction.

Mr. Bevan: Would the hon. Gentleman say that that attitude is characteristic of most Cypriots?

Mr. Aitken: That is rather an unfair question to put. I am not going to say that that is characteristic of most or all the Cypriots in Cyprus, because I do not know.

Mr. Bevan: I thought the hon. Gentleman's point was that, although it was perfectly correct to say that most of the people in Cyprus express a desire for kinship with Greece, nevertheless if they had to choose between that and surrendering the advantages of their association with Great Britain, they would sing a different tune. If that is the case, why not try it?

Mr. Aitken: Either the right hon. Gentleman has not understood me or I have not made myself clear. What I am trying to indicate is that the connection between Enosis and the immediate conditions under which the Cypriot lives is not always clear to all Cypriots. I do not think that the average Cypriot realises that Enosis is in any degree imminent. I am sure that if he did think so, many material considerations such as those which I have mentioned would operate.
This question of material welfare is very important, because if people are better off as they are, if people realise that Enosis will make them worse off, that would be a perfectly fair choice. But I do not believe that the average citizen in Cyprus realises that. I do not believe that the average Cypriot farmer or worker who voted for Enosis realises that his conditions would be very much worsened under Greek sovereignty. The reason they do not realise it is to be found in the very nature of the Enosis campaign. This is a campaign run on lines which we in this country have learned to mistrust for the last 200 years. We do not like plebiscites run by the Church. We do not like plebiscites in which only one side of the question is put.

Mr. K. Robinson: Did not the hon. Gentleman hear my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs tell the House very clearly that the Ethnarchy offered that this plebiscite should be run by the British Government, and the offer was turned down?

Mr. Aitken: I think anybody who has examined the situation is perfectly aware that the Ethnarchy have on several occasions asked the local government to run their own plebiscite, but this would still make it a one-sided plebiscite. If anybody thinks that a plebiscite run by the local government would be a fair plebiscite, I will explain why it would not be.
A plebiscite run by the local government would be exposed to exactly the same one-sided pressures as the plebiscite run by the Ethnarchy, because, first of all, the vast majority of the people in Cyprus speak Greek and a great many do not speak English or read English newspapers. Secondly, the Byzantine Church is the main driving force in the Enosis movement. A Church running a political campaign exposes itself to very grave dangers and temptations to which

no religious body ought to expose itself. To my mind, elections and political questions are not suitable methods for the Church. We do not like it here, and we do not like it in other countries. We do not like it in Ireland.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I have very great sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said about the suitability of the Churches taking part in elections. Having lived a great deal in Ireland, I can understand what he means. But would he not admit that in the case of the Church in Cyprus the position is rather different, in that every bishop has to submit himself to election by a body composed as to more than half by the laity?

Mr. Aitken: I am aware of that, but that still does not make me less suspicious of that kind of plebiscite.
The first reason which I have given why we should remain in Cyprus is security. The second reason is the welfare of the people, and I do not believe that the people of Cyprus realise what would happen to them if the sovereignty of Cyprus were transferred to Greece. Thirdly, I do not trust plebiscites, and I do not think that we in this House ought to trust plebiscites of any kind, especially if they are run by the Church.
My last point is that there is nothing in the whole character and development of our colonial policy which would preclude Cyprus eventually determining her own fate. There is nothing to prevent a community like Cyprus eventually being able to determine its future, but it must be able to determine it with full knowledge and understanding by the people. The Gold Coast has had more experience of running its own affairs than Cyprus has had. The Gold Coast has a much more advanced constitution than the Cypriots had prior to 1931. Unless the Cypriots are in a position really to understand what the choice is, unless they have had a taste of self-government and the advantage of running their own affairs, I think the British Government are quite right to insist that we retain the sovereignty of Cyprus.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: I think we all wish we could hear the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) more often in this House. I


thought what he said was extremely instructive and, if I may, I should like to make a resumé of what he said. He gave three reasons for standing firm in Cyprus. First, it was important for our military security. We could not be squeamish about little things like national independence where military security was at stake. Secondly, he said that where elections go against us they obviously do not represent the will of the people. If as a result of a plebiscite or election one gets the wrong result, one must educate the people. Thirdly, he stated that we must stay because it was good for Cyprus to be under British rule.
I wonder why the hon. Gentleman and some of his friends opposite object so much to certain actions of Soviet Russia? To what do they object? Here is the principle that where military security is concerned we have the right to occupy a country, whatever its national ownership may be, to disregard all plebiscites or elections, and to tell those people that it is good for them to be under our rule. I wonder whom we think we are deceiving? Whom do we think we are taking in with all these ridiculous announcements and this talk from the other side? I wonder who will be deceived by the Minister's statement about all the good we have done for Cyprus and how we really want to give them self-government —but, of course, not to let them do what they want to do. Oh, no—we give them everything else and deny them what they really want.
This has been going on for a long time. We have been told by those opposite that this island had never been under Greek sovereignty. It happens to be the only one of the hundreds of islands of Greece which is not part of Greece proper. It is not part of Greece proper because Disraeli swopped it with the Turks in 1878. It became part of Britain in 1878, and believed that as a Colony of Britain it would get independence, but it is as a result of being a British Colony that it has been denied the independence and Enosis which have been obtained by every other one of the Greek islands.
To the Cypriots we say, "It is all for your good. We know you better than you know yourselves." There are some 10,000 Cypriots who have come to Britain and have their own ideas about this. But we know better than them. Even when under the great influence of this Metropolis

they remain obstinately convinced of their grievance and remain in favour of Enosis; they feel Greek; they are Greek —even then hon. Gentlemen say, "No, no, gentlemen—with time and trouble we shall teach you not to be Greek."
How often in our colonial history have we said the same thing? It is an ironical fact that we are starting the trouble in Cyprus on the same day as we have the ignominious end of the trouble in Egypt. May I say to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that this retreat from Egypt is a scuttle. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen said, "We shall be tough. We shall not give way. Where our national security is concerned we stand firm"— and 18 months afterwards they crawl into the conference room.

Captain Robert Ryder: What would you do?

Mr. Crossman: For two and a half years I have been saying that since an agreement was inevitable the sooner it was done the better. The Government knew it—everyone knew it except the Tory rebels and the chief rebel on the Front Bench. For 18 months he has prevented the agreement with Egypt which is now being concluded with much worse conditions and is likely to cause the most crave trouble in the Middle East.
The difference between a scuttle and a negotiated settlement is this. If one negotiates genuinely wishing an agreement and while one is still free to concede it, one gains the kudos which the Socialist Government gained when we handed over India voluntarily. But these people have kept on for 18 months saying, "Oh, no, it is impossible to go out unless there are left 4,000 British in British uniforms." But now the work is to be done by British civil contractors and Egyptians. What is the change? The change is that one old man has got older and given way. He has kept 80,000 men there and spent £100 million in order to transform what might have been a magnanimous action into the scuttle of imperialists who fail to keep up their imperialism.
I warn the House about Cyprus and all the grand talk that there is now—that we will be tough, give them a moderate constitution, and so on. We will put the base there and then the Enosis movement will get going and there will be the same dreary story as there was in Palestine and


other parts of the world. One puts in troops and all the rest against the will of the people. One talks of being tough, and of making moderate constitutional reforms—which only have the effect of enabling the Nationalist forces to exploit the situation against one. Then one sends British troops, one arrests all the nationalists, then de-arrests them and makes one of them Prime Minister a year later. There was a time when the whole present Cabinet of the Government of Israel was arrested as terrorists and I said then that the time would come when Israel would have its independence. We said that Egypt would have its independence, but there was no genuine independence for Egypt with 80,000 troops close to Cairo. And now it comes years too late and under the worst possible auspices.
Then, immediately after the announcement of this ignominious agreement, there is the announcement that we will go into the same dreary business in Cyprus. Why blind ourselves to all the facts and believe all these half-truths? There has been a plebiscite showing 95 per cent. of the people of Cyprus wanting Enosis, but the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds knows better than those people. He says that if the really responsible people got nearer to the point they would not believe in Enosis. There is a simple way to try that out—give them the chance to get nearer the point and decide for themselves.
That is exactly the chance which is to be denied them under the present proposal. The present proposal is that, since under a constitution which did not appeal to anyone in Cyprus a majority of the members of the legislative council were elected, in future they shall be nominated. If someone is not content with half a loaf, he is given the crust instead. [Interruption.] We are told solemnly by the Minister that we shall really please the Cypriots by giving them, in 1954, a legislative council with a nominated majority. Far less was offered and refused five years ago, yet we are told that this will stem Enosis and that it will stem Communism. We have been told from the other side that we cannot have Communism in Cyprus, but do not hon. Gentlemen realise that the Communists exploit the nationalist movement? The Communists are becoming popular in

Cyprus because they recognise the genuine nature of the nationalist feelings. The best pointer to the genuineness of Enosis is that the Communists have exploited it; they are no fools, and they are on a winner there.
Here I should like to say a word or two about what happened at the meeting of the sub-committee of the Defence Committee of the 1922 Committee. If reports are true, the sub-committee of the Defence Committee of the 1922 Committee—which, of course, was the whole of the 1922 Committee—met a fortnight ago to duscuss Suez. We hear that the Prime Minister took with him to that meeting a great map of Suez. He opened it to show what would happen if an H-bomb exploded. It would wipe out the whole of that area. With an emotional catch in his voice, the Prime Minister told his hearers to look at the map which showed the Suez base, a large area 120 miles by 50 miles, which would be wiped out, and he told the sub-committee it was a dead loss. How grateful the Egyptians will be to the British now that we are getting out of the Suez base and removing this threat from them! But now we are transferring the base to Cyprus, do we expect the Cypriot to be pleased at the privilege of having the headquarters of Middle Eastern Command? Millions of pounds are being spent on the barracks there, and I expect the same contractors are doing this work as did the work on the barracks at Gaza which were not completed before we were thrown out of Palestine.

Mr. Aitken: Has the hon. Member not thought what the position of the Cypriots in respect of the H-bomb would be if we passed the Cyprus sovereignty to Greece? It would be exactly the same as it is now.

Mr. Crossman: I am discussing whether the Cypriots are attracted by the proposal to transfer the British Middle East Base from Suez to the island and whether it will strengthen or weaken their desire for Enosis. If I were a Cypriot and a democrat in Cyprus, I would say, "God forbid that any base in my country should be available for any American bomber, because it is a grave risk." The risk is almost as grave as a non-aggression pact with a Communist state.
We are told now that the Suez Base is a death-trap, that the Egyptians are too


awkward and too hostile and that the best thing would be to move it to Cyprus. Let me assure the House that the Cypriots will not welcome us. They want independence, not occupation. There are some places in the world where we can talk about being trustees for a backward people, but there is no trustee excuse in Cyprus. We acquired this island in 1878, not for economic exploitation, but to keep it as a possibility for the future. The then Government thought that some use might turn up some day for Cyprus and so we should keep it in cold storage. We neglected the island and not until a few years ago was there any economic development there. Nothing was done for it.
I was in Cyprus twice recently on my way to and from Israel, and I should just like to add that if the British Colonial Office had done for that island one-twentieth of what has been done by the Israelis for Israel—and it is roughly the same size—it would be a far more prosperous country, because potentially it is far more prosperous than Israel. Its rainfall is much greater, and it has good prospects, if the rain water is properly controlled.
In the last few years, I agree that we have done something for Cyprus, but that was just when nationalism in the island was beginning to be heard. That is when we start appeasing people in our Colonies. For generations we neglected Cyprus. We kept it in cold storage, in the belief that there would be a use for it some day. Now it is going to be useful—because we have scuttled out of Egypt.
But we are going to make exactly the same mistake in Cyprus as we have made in Egypt and elsewhere. We know already what the will of the population is. It is overwhelmingly in favour of incorporation with Greece. Hon. Members opposite may talk about that meaning a lower standard of life, but democracy means the right to have a low standard of living if that is what the people want and if that is the way they want to live their own lives. Have we learned nothing from Ireland? Human beings sometimes prefer to be free with fewer of the material advantages. If we could only learn that now it would be a step in the right direction.
Do we not understand that the Cypriot prefers to lead his own life in his own way? Heaven knows, he has not had

much from us until recently, so that his standard of life was low anyway. But when we decide that the island should become our base, then we begin to develop it economically. I beg the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State, who made this astonishing statement today, to go back to the Cabinet and ask it to change its mind. It is changing its mind about so many things today that it can afford to change its mind once more on Cyprus.
What are we telling the Cypriots today? On the day of the announcement of the evacuation of Egypt, the Cypriots are told that Britain is tough; that she is going to retain her sovereignty over the island. That means only one thing. May I say that the tragedy of the Middle East is that there is not a country there whose people have got their rights from the British without murder? In every case we have resisted as long as they made their demands peaceably, and we conceded appeasement when they began violence against us.

Mr. H. Hynd: Except in India.

Mr. Crossman: I am talking about the the Middle East. That is what has happened in Jordan, in Persia, in Palestine and in Egypt. In every one of those countries they have learned the lesson that British imperialism is something that gives them nothing unless they take it by force or the threat of force.
The Cypriots are a peaceable people, but they did burn down Government House a few years ago. If the Minister of State continues to make the sort of insulting statement that he made today, he is creating the very Communist movement he says he is determined to prevent. How can the Cypriots organise themselves to get independence? They can only do it either through the Church or through the Communist Party. Those are the two organisations which are fighting for them.
What is it that we have promised the Cypriots this afternoon? We have told them that Britain is getting tough about sovereignty and we are offering them a less progressive constitution than that which they rejected six years ago. In effect, what we are saying is, "Never in any circumstance will this little island be allowed to have its independence; the right to choose whether it should be a


member of the Commonwealth or not." But nobody can be a true member of the Commonwealth without the freedom to choose not to be a member of the Commonwealth. That is the essence of what is, after all, one of the greatest voluntary associations in the world.
We are denying this right of choice to the Cypriots because we want to substitute that island for the Canal Base as our Middle East headquarters. The Prime Minister told the sub-committee of the Defence Committee of the 1922 Committee that the H-bomb would destroy the Suez Base, but now we propose to bring the dangers we are removing from Egypt to the people of Cyprus. I warn the House that this will lead to trouble.
I say to the Colonial Secretary that in the last eight years we have antagonised all the forces in the Middle East which we could have had for our friends because we continued to put military expediency and strategic expediency before political principles. Constantly we have been told that we must be "realists," but that sort of realism is infantile lunacy. Surely by this time we have learned the lesson that a military base is useless if the civilian population are opposed to us. We have to withdraw eventually with a considerable wastage of troops and we loose the good will of the people of the territory in question.
Now we propose to lose the good will of the Cypriots. We first went there in 1878, and now we are in the position that even the Cypriots living in London would far rather see their island a part of Greece. That is the result of 70 years of British rule in that island. We are now to follow a policy of accelerating anti-British feeling in the island, and it is done in the name of military realism. It is done by a Government which because of their Tory rebels got tough in Egypt, but then had to clear out. I say that if it is the right thing to evacuate Egypt —and it is—then it is the right thing to evacuate Cyprus, and to do it in good time.
That is the case we put from this side of the House, and we want to hear what the Colonial Secretary has to say about it. He may say something less repellent and hypocritical than that which came from the ex-Foreign Office official. The

Cypriots will understand what he means by all the talk which we have heard from him today. It will stimulate their resistance; it will make the base useless, and make the Government look even more ridiculous than they look this afternoon.

6.11 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): rose—

Mr. Wyatt: On a point of order. This debate arose out of my attempt to move the Adjournment of the House during the supplementary questions which followed the statement upon Cyprus. I think it is unreasonable that I and other hon. Members who are interested in the subject should not have been called before the Minister.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman. This debate is on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. It has nothing whatever to do with the Adjournment or anything else.

Mr. Wyatt: Is it necessary to call the Minister? We all know what he is going to talk about.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is the practice to call Front Bench Members when they rise.

Mr. Lyttelton: I had not intended to intervene on the subject of Cyprus, except for one reason—that this may well be the last occasion when I have the honour of addressing this House. I have no doubt that that will give great satisfaction to some hon. Members opposite. But now, after hearing the extremely irresponsible and dangerous speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) I find it necessary to say a few words upon the subject in any case.
We all understand the hon. Member's policy; it peeped through some of his remarks. He said, "If I were a citizen of any country, whether it was a British dependency or anything else, I should never permit a British base to be located there." That is exactly what he said, and it means, "I prefer to run every risk of being enslaved rather than allow people of the British Empire to be stationed in my country." We all recognise what that argument is, and we also recognise the policy which underlay all


the speeches I have heard, namely, that whenever anybody asks for anything, even when there are no ordinary democratic means of finding out what it is they want, we are committing a great mistake and being provocative if we do not immediately give way.
I want to try to bring this subject back towards the facts. Let us examine the question of security in the Eastern Mediterranean. Not a single speaker from the benches opposite has even mentioned Turkey in the course of his remarks. The hon. Member for Coventry, East, who knows so much about the Middle East—

Mr. Crossman: I certainly mentioned Turkey.

Mr. Lyttelton: Only in the historical sense. I want to refer to it in the present sense. Are hon. Members opposite aware of the position which Turkey occupies in the defence plans of N.A.T.O.? Are they aware that 18 per cent, of the population of Cyprus is Turkish-speaking? Is no account to be taken of these facts? They have not been mentioned—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—when I have been in the House. I am only making the point that any talk of Enosis will have the gravest effect upon Turkish opinion. It is worth making the point that 18 per cent. of the population of Cyprus are Turkish-speaking, but it has not been made by anybody so far.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the fact that 18 per cent. of the population of Cyprus speak Turkish has not been mentioned, but that is not correct. I referred to it a great deal. Have there been any representations from Turkey upon this question? If so, what?

Mr. Lyttelton: I said that in the scheme of the defence of the Eastern Mediterranean, Turkish opinion and the solidarity of Turkey in the arrangements are of primary importance. That point has not been made while I have been in the House, and I heard the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) in full. The mere statistic that 18 per cent. of the Cypriots speak Turkish might well have been mentioned.
Eastern Mediterranean security demands that we maintain sovereign power in Cyprus. That is expert opinion. Some

hon. Members opposite expressed the opinion that we would be much safer if we allowed a country to become attached to some foreign Power and then established our base there by treaty. That is a curious argument to advance. A large part of the argument of the hon. Member for Coventry, East, was devoted to drawing a comparison between the situation in Egypt and that in Cyprus, but that is wholly inapposite to this discussion. There cannot be any going back on expert opinion in this matter.
I believe that the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg)—when I was not in the House—said that the talk of self-government for Cyprus was hypocrisy, or words to that effect. He knows that in many parts of the British Colonial Territories there is a very large measure of self-government, while the Governor and, consequently, Her Majesty's Government, retain certain powers in their hands in connection with external relations and defence. However desirable it might be, in everybody's opinion, it is not possible at this stage in the world situation to give Cyprus full control over her external relations and defence, any more than it is possible at this moment to go still further and say that the external relations and defence of Cyprus are matters for the Greek Government.

Mr. Driberg: The right hon. Gentleman used the phrases "at this stage," and "at this moment." Possibly there is a very important difference between his view and that of the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs because the main point of the Minister of State which alarmed and disturbed some of us was that the term "self-government" could never be applied in its full sense to Cyprus, and that this was one of the territories, under the Potomac Charter and other agreements, which could never enjoy full self-government with independent self-determination.

Mr. Lyttelton: It is a most unlikely thing in any future we can foresee. I never used the term "never" and neither did my right hon. Friend.
One of the things about which the hon. Member for Coventry, East became most effervescent was the fact that we were now leaving Egypt. He said that he advocated this step two years ago. At that time it would have been disastrous, but now, with the H-bomb and various


other weapons in existence, quite a different set of circumstances have arisen. However, I was not on that point but on the point of self-government.
I should have thought that we would all have agreed that, within the framework of Eastern Mediterranean security, which we have to preserve, we should make every attempt to engage the population of Cyprus, as far as possible, in the responsibility for managing its own affairs. Since 1948 Cyprus has had before it a constitution, which, if I may use the phrase, it has not taken up. Are we, therefore, just to sit down and make no attempt to broaden the basis of the Council in Cyprus? I would remind hon. Members opposite who are not on the Front Bench that the constitution offered in 1948 contained this clause:
It is the intention of His Majesty's Government that the field of debate and legislature should be restricted as little as possible. The Constitution must provide that the Legislature may not discuss the status of Cyprus within the British Commonwealth, but apart from this no subject need be ipso facto excluded."— [Colonial No. 227, paragraph 16.]
It would be interesting to know whether that is still the official attitude of hon. Members opposite, or whether the official attitude now is that we should follow the policy enunciated with so much froth and effervescence by the hon. Member for Coventry, East and hand Cyprus over to Greece. If it is the latter, the sooner it is stated the better, and the easier it will be for the Government to knock down the case. I can hardly imagine that that is the official Labour Party attitude, but it is a little difficult to know because of the sharp difference there is between Members opposite below the Gangway and those above it. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Tory Party?"] Well, these things happen, but it would be interesting to know what is the Labour Party's official attitude about that. That constitution has not been taken up and it seems to me the commonest of common sense that now we should at any rate make some advance towards broadening the basis of the administration.
Another point I would impress upon hon. Members opposite is that to plunge into things like Enosis when there is no democratic basis for the formation of public opinion is very dangerous. What we want to do is to give Cyprus the fullest

measure of self-government, bit by bit as she is able to exercise it, but always within the framework of British rule. We cannot now, in the interests of the Cypriots and of Mediterranean security, think of the junction of Cyprus with Greece.
In all British Colonial Territories, we do not admit the right of any foreign Power, however friendly, to interfere with the sovereignty of the British Crown. Let me make it quite clear that that applies to Cyprus as well as to every other British territory. We want to build up self-governing institutions, and if they will not take up the present constitution, as they have not done—and it has been lying on the table for six years—we have now to broaden the basis of the administration by taking action of our own. What cannot be done by agreement has to be done by what is popularly known as unilateral action now. There is nothing forcible about this. It is an attempt to broaden the representation of the Greek-speaking and the Turkish-speaking Cypriots in the management of their own affairs. The attitude of those who have said that we should do this by handing over Cyprus to a foreign Power is quite unworthy.
We have to be patient in these affairs. Those who deal with colonial matters know that one of the most dangerous things is to try to do by Tuesday week what has taken years to work out. I can imagine no more disastrous policy for Cyprus than to hand it over to an unstable though friendly Power. It would have the effect of undermining the eastern bastion of N.A.T.O. It would have the effect of depressing the standard of life of everyone in Cyprus. How many times have I heard in the last three years hon. Members opposite say that the first thing we have to do is to raise the standard of life in this and that country. This proposal of theirs to hand Cyprus over to another Power would have the effect of lowering the standard of life in Cyprus.
So on those grounds I am afraid there can be no other policy than to endeavour —patiently, especially when one side does not agree with all that is proposed—to build up self-governing institutions in Cyprus so that the people there may take an increasing responsibility for their own affairs. It is very likely that when those institutions have been built up the


Cypriots who do not agree with us will take a very different view of the Enosis proposals from that which they may take now in the present atmosphere, whether created by the attitude of the Church and a certain amount of propaganda or not. Then, too, some hon. Members opposite will be ashamed of many of the things that they have said, which cannot do any good at all in the present situation, but are in some sense an incitement still further to promote the Enosis campaign.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: The Secretary of State began his speech by intimating personally to us what we have gathered from reports in the Press, that this would be his last appearance in this House. In the last three years I have crossed swords with him as often as any Member of the House. I have done so not for personal reasons, but because of disagreements with him about policy. Now that he is leaving and we break off the battle I would say, "Never mind that now. That is over. I wish him well."
The debate has arisen because of the statement made by the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs. I hope that the Minister will intervene in the debate again because neither he nor the Secretary of State has clarified some of the issues which have arisen out of questions put to him today. The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs said that it was proposed to bring into operation a new constitution. He did not give the details of it, but he laid down this basis for it, that there is to be a legislature and that in the legislature there would be an official majority and an unofficial minority, which means that the elected element will be the minority.
In the constitution that was offered to Cyprus before, and to which reference has been made, the reverse was the position. There was to have been an elected majority. I would ask the Minister since the Government now feel another offer has to be made to Cyprus to encourage constitutional advance, why the Government have made a change in that material and important respect. The Secretary of State has not told us, and I hope the Minister will intervene later to tell us.
The next question is, when it is proposed that these changes should come into operation? I ask the Minister of

State for Colonial Affairs, or the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister, as he is about, to confirm that no irrevocable step will be taken before the House resumes its Sittings in October and has an opportunity of fully discussing the matter.

Mr. Lyttelton: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will take it from me that we certainly give that pledge. A start has to be made, and the first thing is that the Governor must have wider opportunities of discussing these proposals with the political parties. It will take some time.

Mr. Griffiths: Yes. I particularly ask that because I would say, after consultation with my right hon. Friends sitting with me on this Bench, that we want time to consider this statement and to consider the whole matter. We reserve our position on it, because the matter has not been considered by our party since the statement was made. I want it to be understood, since the House is to rise on Friday, that no final step will be taken in this matter and that the Government will not act upon this policy of bringing into operation these proposals until the House resumes in October and the matter can come before the House again. I want to get that clear.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his noble Friend welcomed this statement in another place today?

Mr. Griffiths: No, I am not aware of that. I am for the moment speaking for myself and for my right hon. Friends, after consulting those of them here now.
The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs said that this was the first step towards self-government for Cyprus. He was asked whether it included a pledge to Cyprus that the evolution of self-government within the British Commonwealth envisaged at the end the reaching of that constitutional status which we still describe as Dominion status, which is clearly defined in the Statute of Westminster, and which, when reached, enables the territory concerned to make up its own mind whether to stay in the Commonwealth, or to become severed from the Commonwealth, or to join with any other country.
As I understood, the Minister said that the offer did not include that at any stage —not "at the present stage." If that is true, it will be a departure in the case


of Cyprus from the policy we have laid down for the Colonial Territories. It is true that there are problems about the smaller territories, but there are no problems comparable with the one in this case. As we understood the Minister, never was Cyprus to obtain to the position in which it could have Dominion status and, therefore, be free and entitled to decide for itself.
It was the hope of the Labour Government—I still adhere to the hope—that the people of Cyprus would work with us by accepting a constitution. We not only offered a constitution, but also offered to discuss it. We did not say, "This is the constitution, and you will accept it"; we said, "This is the basis for discussion." The present Government are not saying to Cyprus, "These are the proposals that we are putting forward, and we invite you to discuss them." I still urge the Government to consider whether that ought not to be the line to be followed.
My predecessors and I refused a referendum. I am not attracted by a referendum. I and my predecessors wanted to work out our colonial policy, which was to create institutions in all the Colonies so that they should eventually reach the stage where they would be fully self-governing. I not only want to create in those Colonies self-government; I want it to be democratic self-government, and I want there to be social justice as well. I want us to reach a stage where we not merely hand over power; I want us to hand over power to a democratic country with democratic institutions by whom the power will be wielded democratically. I am convinced that the only real independence is democratic independence. What other kind of independence is there?
I understand that no irrevocable decision will be taken before the House resumes after the Recess. The Labour Party want to consider the whole position in the light of the changing situation and also in the light of the changing strategic position. It was the hope of the Labour Government, and in particular of the late Mr. Ernest Bevin, that the Middle East's strategic situation would be solved—it is a great pity that it was not—by mutual arrangements covering all the countries in the Middle East. If it had been possible to secure such an arrangement in which

Greece, Turkey and all the other countries could have taken part, the whole problem of Cyprus and strategy in the Middle East could have been reconsidered. Unfortunately, that opportunity has not arisen, and we are now faced with the present situation.
If a constitution is imposed, there will be a likelihood of elections and a boycott, and in six or 12 months' time we shall have contributed nothing towards a solution of the problem in Cyprus. I believe there is a chance of a settlement if we offer not a constitution but discussions on a constitution, with the undertaking that the constitution will be a beginning towards democratic independence as defined in the Statute of Westminster, and then when that stage is reached it will be for the people of Cyprus themselves to decide their own future, as the people of India and Burma have done, and the Gold Coast will do. That would be the wisest and the best course to follow.
There was a passage in the Minister's statement with which I agree. Certainly, since 1945—and, to some extent, even before that—our colonial administration has done a first-class job in the social and economic fields in Cyprus. The job that we did in the field of health under the five-year plan to wipe out malaria was one of the finest pieces of co-operative effort to raise the standard of life of a people in the record of our colonial administration during the last eight or nine years.
The Labour Party will consider this matter as a party and we shall make up our minds after reviewing the whole situation in the light of the changes which have taken place and with the desire to build up democratic self-government in Cyprus. I do not want to discuss the merits or demerits of this matter at any great length now. I repeat that the Labour Party reserve their decision; we want an opportunity fully to consider the matter and to make up our minds in due course.

6.36 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: I am very sincerely sorry that the speech which we heard just now from my right hon. Friend may be his last in the House. Whatever differences I may have had with other right hon. Friends who sit on the Government Front Bench as Ministers, I have certainly nothing but admiration for his tenure of the Colonial Office.


This country and, in particular, the Colonial Territories owe a great debt to him for the sincerity with which he has approached his task and for the resolution with which he carried out his policy once he made up his mind what it was he wanted to do. Whatever else may be said about him in the future, the record which he will leave behind him at the Colonial Office will be outstanding in man's mind by reason of the fact that he carried out a just policy with great courage in the face of considerable unpopularity. His policy was based on what he believed to be right, and no man on earth can be asked to do more than that.
I lived for six months in Cyprus during the war. I realise that it is very dangerous to rush to conclusions as to what the civilian life of a country is when one is stationed there as a soldier, especially in wartime. In time of war, it is especially dangerous to attempt to judge what the politics of a country are. I sometimes think that people serving in the Armed Forces who return to this country and start telling us what the political situation is in the countries where they have been ought to have that consideration in mind.
I should like to give the House one or two observations which I hope will be helpful to hon. Members and will assist the Government in making up their minds as to how to go about the tasks which they have now set themselves.
In the first place, I most heartily endorse all that was said earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken). I am convinced that the security issue in respect of Cyprus is the overriding one, whether we like it or not and whether those who live in Cyprus like it or not. My reason for thinking that it is overriding is that I cannot perceive in the foreseeable future the slightest chance of the Cypriots themselves being able to provide the revenue necessary to ensure the defence of Cyprus. That seems to me automatically to lead to the conclusion that someone else has to be very largely responsible for providing the security of Cyprus. Who is in a better position to do this than ourselves in conjunction with the other signatories of N.A.T.O.?
I have an historical note here which, I think, may be of interest to the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs and. I think,

the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) earlier in the debate referred to our obligations arising out of our acquiring Cyprus from the Turks in 1878. History sometimes takes a long time to work itself out. I have here a copy of the letter which Lord Beaconsfield wrote to Queen Victoria on 5th May, 1878. It reads:
If Cyprus be conceded to Your Majesty by the Porte and England at the same time enters into a defensive alliance with Turkey, guaranteeing Asiatic Turkey from Russian invasion, the power of England in the Mediterranean will be absolutely increased in that region, and Your Majesty's Indian Empire immensely strengthened. Cyprus is the key of Western Asia.
The point which I particularly wish to draw to the attention of the House from that quotation is where it refers to an alliance guaranteeing Turkey against the possibility of Russian invasion. One can say that we have had to wait 80 years before that treaty has materialised. We now have the N.A.T.O. Treaty, which really does this very thing.
I would say, because I disagree with the Government about what they have done in Egypt, that to my mind today is a very black day in British history. I would also say that the importance of Cyprus from the security point of view becomes infinitely greater than it was while we had as our policy the maintenance of troops in Egypt. I feel, therefore, that the security aspect of our relations with Cyprus must be the overriding one, not only from our own point of view, but also from the Cypriots' point of view. I cannot see how Cyprus as a country can ever possibly afford from her revenue to finance or even to man, still less to equip, adequate forces.

Mr. Driberg: I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for being so frank about the real reason why he wants us to remain in Cyprus. On the limited point of the inability of the Cypriots to provide for their own defence, surely he would agree that the same is true, for instance, of Burma to a certain extent, and also that it is possible for an independent Cypriot nation to enter into defence agreements with other nations.

Major Legge-Bourke: I see the point of the hon. Member's question perfectly well. I think that the less I say about Burma the better. I have already listed Burma in a long chain of withdrawals,


of which I certainly do not approve, looking back on it. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is dodging the point."] I am not dodging the point. So far as defence is concerned, surely one of the greatest measures of true sovereignty is whether or not it is possible to defend oneself if attacked. I cannot see that, given the best will in the world, the Cypriots will ever be in the position to do that, the world situation being what it is and the nature of modern war being what it is.
I hope that the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), from what I have said, will not suppose that as a result I would obstruct anything which was likely to lead the Cypriots to the greatest measure of self-government possible. I have not had an opportunity to read the statement which the Government made today about the future of Cyprus, but nothing that I have heard in this debate has led me to suppose that the Government want to obstruct that process. All that we are trying to do is to face the reality of the situation, namely, that Cyprus cannot possibly defend itself, or have the revenue to defend itself, or pay for its own defence. Therefore, there must be some difficulty in the Cypriot issue which normally goes in granting self-government.
I think that there is another important aspect which hon. Members who have not been to the island of Cyprus cannot possibly have appreciated; that is, that there is a very marked difference between the Cypriots who live in the towns and the Cypriots who live in the countryside—an enormous difference to which we in this country are not at all used. With our State education, such as we have it today, and with the readiness to take an interest in current affairs that there is both in the countryside and in the towns of this country, we perhaps overlook the fact that in a country where the peasantry have very simple ways and a certain reluctance to over-exercise themselves in any type of employment, it is very difficult to see the way clearly ahead as to how self-government should come about.
I hope that the Government will be very careful to see that, whatever form of self-government they put up, it will not result in the townsmen of Cyprus alone ruling or advising as to what should be done for the island as a whole. I

think that the difference between the outlook of the townsmen in Cyprus and that of the peasants in the countryside is so great that if we tried to rule the country from the town this would inevitably cause great unhappiness in the countryside.
I think that those who have met the Cypriots in the countryside have rather a warm corner in their hearts for them. They are not over-energetic and they have the most simple methods in agriculture. To see them threshing is a wonderful sight, in a way, because it conjures up the idea of almost primitive methods. To see, for instance, a chair placed on a board in which sharp flints have been inserted in the underside and the whole contraption being dragged round and round by a donkey on a summer's day makes one wonder what modern agricultural methods could do for that island.
This is one aspect of the island's life which I have painted to show how markedly different it is from this country, and how terribly dangerous it is that we in this country should assume that everyone has the same approach and the same needs when we start talking about self-government. We have a great advantage over those people. We are far more civilised and cultured in many ways, but they have something of their own which we have not got. It is wrong for us to suppose that by pumping something from our system into theirs it is automatically going to work.
There is one other political aspect beyond that upon which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds touched earlier. It is true, I think, to say that there has been a good deal of political interference over Enosis so far as the Church there has been concerned. In my recollection, one of the most awkward situations which arose every year in Cyprus was the attempt to celebrate the Battle of Navarino of 1827. That battle resulted in a crushing defeat of the Turko-Egyptian fleet at that time by Britain and Russia very largely, and that date is still celebrated regularly every year in the villages of Cyprus, particularly by the Greeks.
If we are not very careful, if we grant all that Enosis is now asking for, we may find that we have done a shocking injustice to the 18 per cent., or whatever it may be, of the Turkish population in the villages. Obviously, little disputes


like that need careful watching, especially when they become village festivals, or attempted village festivals, at the expense of a small section of the population of those villages. One has a certain obligation to see that that sort of trouble does not get out of hand, which is what it easily could do.
More by bad luck than anything else, that island happens to be geographically in a position which automatically makes it of supreme strategic importance from the point of view of preserving world peace against possible Russian aggression. I do not think any of us welcome that fact. I am quite certain that if the arguments that have been used about hydrogen bombs for our removing ourselves from Egypt are applied to Cyprus, the position of Cyprus is truly terrifying.
I agree with those—I think I was one of the first ever to raise it in the House —who say that of all places where not to put G.H.Q. Middle East, Cyprus is it. But that is a matter of opinion, and obviously the Government will inevitably take the best military expert opinion they can get at the time; that, obviously, does not agree with my point of view. Nevertheless, all the lessons of the last war show that islands are difficult places on which to have vital things. And on top of that there is now the hydrogen bomb, which has already blown one island out of existence and has left a hole in the floor of the ocean a mile wide. And yet we are moving our great Middle East headquarters into Cyprus. I certainly do not agree with that.
If we go from Egypt, Cyprus becomes of even greater importance to us than it is today. I do not dispute the deployment argument. It must, I think, apply, and we must break up our forces into what might be called penny packets rather than having them all in one lump sum. The question is where to go and what to put in the various places to which we go.
My feeling is that the wrong decision has been made; that is why I say that today is a black day in British history. But so far as Cyprus and the particular issues before us this afternoon are concerned, I think that the Government are right to claim that the security of Cyprus affects the sovereignty problem of Cyprus very materially, and that the previous Government were right when they said they were not prepared, as the present

Government are not prepared, to discuss the sovereignty of British territory with anyone. It is a matter for us to make up our own minds about, and in the interests of Cyprus herself and of this country I say that we certainly must preserve that position so far as sovereignty is concerned.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: This has been to most hon. Members who have been in the House and listened to it, a very important debate. It is unfortunate that it had to push out another subject that hon. Members on this side of the House wanted to discuss, but we had no idea of the nature of the statement that was to be made. I want to protest once more against these very radical alterations of Government policy being announced immediately before the Recess, when the House has no normal opportunity of discussing them.
The speech to which we have just listened is characteristic of the courage and honesty of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge Bourke). He is very plain spoken about these matters, and perhaps he was quite right when he said that in one respect this was a black day for Britain; for what has fallen from the lips of the Colonial Secretary and from the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs today has shown that the Conservative Party has not changed one little bit.
The party opposite would, indeed, not only have scored a victory, but they would have put our foreign policy on an intelligible foundation, had they said, "We are leaving Egypt because we consider that we have no business to remain in a country if the people of that country do not want us." Had they said that, and their whole policy had been consistent with it, it would amount to an intelligible and coherent design in foreign affairs.
The Colonial Secretary said that we are leaving Egypt because of the advent of the hydrogen bomb. Therefore, we are saying to the people of the Middle East, "We are not leaving Egypt because we recognise the rights of the Egyptians, or because we do not want to be bad friends with Egypt. We are leaving Egypt only because it is not now militarily tenable" The Government emphasise that by saying, on the same day, that so


indifferent are we to the wishes of people that we are to establish our base in Cyprus; and we tell the people of Cyprus quite bluntly that if the existence of the Middle East Command there and their self-government are inconsistent, their self-government must be abandoned. That is what the Government have said.
The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely is quite right when he is so sorrowful about the situation. What he is now saying is that Great Britain has not changed her attitude to the world at all, that we have not adjusted ourselves to the facts of the modern world, and that we are still as imperialist as we ever were but we are not as strong as we were. In other words, we are still as traditionalist as we ever were before but, unfortunately, we have to abandon place after place because we have been driven out. So we are not leaving because we are better; we are leaving because we are weaker.
I can quite understand that a traditional Conservative weeps over that situation. He has a nostalgia for the days when he would stay where he wanted to stay, no matter what the people of that country thought about him. He has not moved at all. He has not awakened to the fact that we on this side have tried to point out over and over again that the forces of nationalism in the world today form some of the strongest emotional urges with which every nation has to deal, and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) said in what, I consider, was a most remarkable. Coherent, cogent speech—[Laughter.] I do not know what hon. Members opposite are laughing about. When we were urging them more than two years ago to do what they have now done today, they jeered then just the same. They have learnt nothing at all. Now, they are repeating, on Cyprus, exactly the same arguments that they advanced to us two and a half years ago with respect to Egypt. They talk about the overriding military, strategical considerations.
The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely told us just now exactly what a Burmese during the war told me the then Prime Minister told him. A very representative Burmese visited this country, with very great difficulty indeed,

to try to negotiate with the Prime Minister self-government for Burma. All that he wanted from the Prime Minister at that time was a promise that when the war was over, Burma would be given self-government within the Commonwealth. That is all he wanted. What did the Prime Minister answer—or so he told me? He said, "What is the use of giving Burma self-government? She is too weak to defend herself." That was the answer, and that is exactly the hon. and gallant Gentleman's answer, that no nation ought to be given self-government if it is too weak to defend its independence. We had better give it up here, because we are too weak to defend our independence.
Every argument advanced from the opposite side of the House for the existence of the American bases in Great Britain is an argument that we are now too weak to defend our independence. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman accept the logic of that? I will give way to him if he wishes. I understand his reluctance to intervene, but the fact is that there is hardly a nation in the world which is now strong enough to defend its independence. We have reached a situation in which the traditional attitude of the Conservative Party is no longer relevant, but they will not wake up to the situation.

Major Legge-Bourke: The right hon. Gentleman is using his usual imagination when transcribing what I actually said. I would ask him to remember that one of the things I said—and I think he will probably agree when he faces it—is that the sovereignty of a country ultimately is often judged by whether it can defend itself. I do not see in the future the slightest likelihood of Cyprus being able to provide her own defence.

Mr. Bevan: That is exactly what I said the hon. and gallant Gentleman said. If he does not understand what he said, we are quite clear about it. If he will only face facts, he will agree that that is an argument against any nation having independence, because no nation can now defend itself. Therefore, that point is irrelevant.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the Cypriot peasants are different from the townspeople, and he described in graphic terms the way in which they


get water and thresh their corn. If he went to India he would see at the present time people living under even more primitive conditions than that, and yet in India is to be found one of the most remarkable examples of the beginnings of self-government among backward people in any part of the world. I should imagine that everybody is hoping, because it is in the British Commonwealth, that India will succeed in her attempt.

Major Legge-Bourke: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not forget that many of the benefits which those people are now deriving were originally brought into being by the British-Indian Civil Service.

Mr. Bevan: Then why have we not conferred the same benefits upon the people of Cyprus who are literate and, therefore, could take advantage of those benefits?
Now that we are leaving Egypt, why could we not give the civilised reason for doing so, the reason which the soldiers gave and the reason that we were given by the generals in the Canal Zone—that we could not stay in Egypt because a hostile population made it impossible to have a modern military base in its midst? That is what they told us. It is not because of the hydrogen bomb because, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, this island to which we are retreating would be wiped out by the hydrogen bomb, so we are not going from a weaker place to a stronger place. We are not even going to a more inaccessible place, because it is nearer.
It would be far better if we accepted the logical fact that in the modern world we can only govern people eventually with their own consent and we cannot have even reasonable military relations with them unless they are prepared to accord them. The Middle East Command is going from Egypt to Cyprus, and the function of the Foreign Office is to create in Cyprus as friendly an atmosphere as possible among the people in Cyprus for the hospitality of our troops. That, surely, is their first duty. If we are leaving Egypt for the reasons that we all know about, and if we are to take up residence in Cyprus, surely it is the duty of the Government so to adjust their policy as to produce as

friendly an atmosphere as possible in Cyprus.
Instead, what have they done? The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs bluntly tells the Cypriots that they can only get their own way by doing what the Egyptians have done. That is what he said. In fact, when we try to plead in the House for some consideration for their own wishes we are told that we are mischievous. If, in this House of Commons, no voice is raised for the legitimate aspirations of colonial peoples, then they are driven to nothing but violence in order to get their own way. That is why we are here. The only way in which we can conceivably get orderly development towards self-government in the British Empire is through those people feeling that they have their advocates here. If they have not got them here, they must have them in their own streets.
This is an open invitation by the British House of Commons to the people of Cyprus to take whatever measures they think they can take to make things as uncomfortable as possible for us when we establish a base there. I think that is a most unfortunate and undesirable thing to say, and it was not in accord with the much wiser sentiments which fell from the lips of the Foreign Secretary this afternoon, because if there was any division at all in this House it was the division between the last speech of the Colonial Secretary and the speech of the Foreign Secretary. In fact, so mischievous was the Colonial Secretary in his last speech that he made as much trouble as possible for us with Greece because he talked about the Greek Government as being unstable. Judging by what is happening upstairs, if unstable Governments make por allies, this one is rocking to its death.
I think that the juxtaposition of those two statements today, the one about Egypt and the one about Cyprus, was most unfortunate because they will be interpreted throughout the Middle East not as we would wish them to be interpreted, that we have adjusted ourselves to the realities of the modern world, but that we have a reluctant Conservative Government clinging to their old ideas, being driven from one position to another because they have neither the moral stature nor the physical strength to defend themselves.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: I make no apology for continuing the debate on Cyprus because, as has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), this is, in part, a black day; but, whether it is black or white, it is certainly an historic day because we have to make very serious new decisions about the disposal of our forces throughout the Commonwealth and about what we are going to do about the colonial areas which are important strategically and to which, for various reasons, we are not anxious to give immediate self-government.
We should consider for a moment how this statement on Cyprus came to be made today, because the background of it is Partly the key to it. First, the Government had their difficulties with the 1922 Committee, and that is politically of no small importance at the moment. Having forced their way through the 1922 Committee, or by-passed it, and having insisted on carrying on with leaving Egypt —which they knew to be right and as the Foreign Secretary said was fair to the Egyptians themselves—they realised that they would have to throw something to the 1922 Committee to keep it quiet. So they threw to the Committee the proposition that, although we may have been driven out of Egypt, we do not propose to be driven out of Cyprus. That was the nature of the bargain made over Cyprus.
However, the difficulty the Government were in was that, having made the bargain, having said, "We will promise you never to get out of Cyprus if you will let us get out of Egypt," they then had to put a better gloss on it for the world at large than a mere abrupt determination to stay in Cyprus. Consequently, we had that long constitutional explanation and the not very clear proposals made by the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs this afternoon.
This simply will not do, because the Government are getting the worst of both worlds on it; they have not really satisfied their 1922 rebels, who are still angry about Egypt and are worried about Cyprus—because even the mere mention of self-government, disguised though it was this afternoon, is enough to throw them into a panic. It has certainly not

done anything to satisfy the people of Cyprus, because it has proposed a nominated and official legislature.
So there can be no real expression of the feelings of the people, whatever the elections throw up, because they can never be translated into action, since the nominated and official members of the Assembly will have the majority and that will prevent any minority proposal which the government do not like from getting through. Consequently, they have said, "You may have self-government so long as you do not want self-government."
The only result can be to create not less Communists—I can understand the Government being worried about the number of them on the island—but more, because we cannot damp down national feeling in Cyprus by this action. It will be inflamed further, and will make more solid the coalition between the Church and the Communists—incidentally, it is the only place in the world where there is such a coalition—and it is the Tory Government who are strengthening this.
The Government should have taken a long-term look at the future of Cyprus. I understand that the object is to get a secure base there, particularly as that base will have to be expanded as a result of the withdrawal of troops on active service from Egypt. I understand that, and I also think it is correct. Nevertheless, we have to do it in a way which is consistent with the rights and feelings of the people who live on Cyprus. There is a real defence problem involved there, just as there is in the case of Malta and Gibraltar, and other territories which, at the moment, are not to get self-government and for whom some arrangement has to be devised to satisfy them.
It was interesting that in the same week as this statement about Cyprus has been made a delegation has been here from Malta. The Minister has seen the delegation, but not the Secretary of State. It has been given a brief answer to its general proposition, which is a sound one. The proposition is that Malta would like to be integrated with this country and to send two or three Members of Parliament here to take part in our deliberations, and to continue to be a part of this Commonwealth and have a fuller hearing in this country for their grievances.
Here we have the extraordinary case of a Colony wanting to get closer to this country, not farther away. Yet the Government, in a very intelligent way, are brushing all that aside and not looking at the possibilities of the proposal. And the same sort of thing arises over Gibraltar. In the case of Cyprus, however, there is a different problem. First, it is probably much too big to be integrated with this country, even supposing it wanted to be. Secondly, the national feeling will rise. Thirdly, the Cypriots happen, rightly or wrongly, to want to join up with Greece. In this case, therefore, there is a third party besides ourselves and the Cypriots.
It is no use the Secretary of State saying, "It has always been our custom never to discuss any section of British territory with a foreign country" because this is an entirely new situation. It is one in which the inhabitants of the British territory concerned want to become a part of this country and the Secretary of State declines to have any discussion with them. It does not create a precedent, however, in the sense of saying that any country which likes has a right to talk about our Colonies; it only creates a precedent in that here are the inhabitants of an important area who want to join up with Greece.
The nub of this matter is not whether or not the constitution offered today is far from likely to lead over a long period of years to self-government; it is not whether or not we are to try to run Cyprus by brute force; it is whether or not we are to discuss practically what could be done with the Greeks in order to give us what we want and what the Cypriots want. What we want is a secure base. What they want is a link with Greece. Also, Greece happens to want us to have a secure base in Cyprus, too, because she is a member of N.A.T.O. and also has a pact with Turkey. So everyone concerned wants to have a secure base on Cyprus.
In that case, the way is open. The Greeks themselves have made it clear that they are willing to talk about this in detail and to give us the base we need. It has been said by the Secretary of State that, in the opinion of some unnamed experts, unless there is complete sovereignty over the whole territory there cannot be a satisfactory base. This is nonsense. We

have a very satisfactory base at Gibraltar and yet we do not have sovereignty over the hinterland. At the moment we have a fairly secure base in Hong Kong—at any rate, it is secure as long as the Chinese allow it to remain there. The only reason why it might not then be secure is because of the overwhelming force which the Chinese can mount against it.
There is no reason why we should not create in Cyprus now, while feeling is sympathetic towards the idea, both in Greece and in Cyprus, a kind of Hong Kong. It is perfectly easy to have a kind of Hong Kong which is ceded territory; not a territory for a term of years, but a permanent cession of a sufficient part of the island to provide a harbour and the necessary military base, which is the arrangement that was made about Hong Kong and which has been made about Gibraltar.
We have no particular concern in governing Cypriots. That is not our desire. We do not want to govern any part of Greece either. What we are concerned about is the base. What we ought to be concerned with as a leading nation of the free world is only having bases in a way which is consistent with the rights of the inhabitants of the country concerned.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Has my hon. Friend considered the situation of the Turkish population of Cyprus, who are very nearly a quarter of the total, and who would object desperately to being handed over to Greece?

Mr. Wyatt: Yes, there is a Turkish minority, but it is 18 per cent., not a quarter. The question of minorities is always difficult and is always advanced to prevent progress towards self-government or the wishes of the majority being achieved. We had the same thing in India and in Burma. We have had the same thing wherever we have had the problem of trying to arrive at self-government. It is a solvable problem because there must be consultation about what is to be done about the Turkish minority and all the rest of it. I am saying, however, that whether we were there or not, there would be a Turkish minority. There was one there before we arrived. It is not our duty to deal with the affairs of the Cypriots. The only


reason why we want to deal with them is because we want a secure base there.
I believe that it would be quite possible to work out a kind of Hong Kong or Egypt in Cyprus to give us all that we need in the way of a base, which means that instead of losing the friendship of the Greeks we should retain it and be able to show the rest of the world that while we are trying to maintain bases to defend not only ourselves and the Commonwealth but the free world we are doing it in a way acceptable to the people who have to live in the territories where the bases are situated.

BRITISH GUIANA

7.21 p.m.

Miss Jennie Lee: The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs has had a very gruelling day. From Question time onwards he has carried the main burden for his Department. His right hon. Friend has, to a certain extent, anticipated his retirement. Keeping that in mind, I would not trouble to raise a matter of minor importance.
But whatever our discomforts may sometimes be in this House, they are nothing compared with those about which I have given the right hon. Gentleman a little notice and which I now want to have discussed. I am greatly distressed at the reports that have been coming to me about prison conditions in British Guiana. It is part of the same story as that of our relations, previously debated, with Egypt, Cyprus and India. Apparently we have to go through phases when in our dealings with people who are weaker and poorer than ourselves we use our power not to help them, but to attempt to repress them.
I am particularly concerned to have whatever information the Minister can give me about the conditions in the prison in which Mr. Jagan has been held. I believe that the prison is known as Brickdam. It is in Georgetown. My information is that it is a very old building. I am told that the building was at one time condemned, but is now being used again. I am told that the standards of the building and the general conditions do not conform to our international obligations and do not conform even to the standards that have been laid down by the British Prison Commission. I have

no desire to make any statement that exaggerates the problem. I am aware that whatever is said will be reported in British Guiana and may be reported in this country and that there are many people in both countries who are concerned to know the truth.
Will the Minister tell me whether this prison is as out of date as my information leads me to believe? Will he tell me the size of each of the cells and whether it is a fact that cells which were intended for single occupants are being used to house as many as three prisoners? I am also informed that the diet which is being supplied to the prisoners is below the standards that are laid down in our prison regulations. It may he that the calorific content of the food given to the prisoners is up to standard when it reaches the prison and that for some reason the full amount does not reach the individual prisoner. I am making no charge, but I should like to know the facts.
I appreciate that the Minister has had short notice of some of these questions, but I should like him to tell me as much as he can, and I should like his assurance that he will make investigations into conditions in this prison and in any other prisons in British Guiana. At least, we need not have it on our conscience that we have under our control people who are confined under substandard conditions and who are not given the amount of food which they are entitled to receive. I am particularly concerned since I have not been brought to interest myself in this prison issue because of the usual run of criminal offenders.
I do not mean to imply that criminals should not also be provided with proper standards in gaol, but in this gaol there are a good many political prisoners. It would appear that some political prisoners are being sentenced to hard labour and are housed in a building which in part is not even weatherproof, that the cells are overcrowded, that the diet goes below standard and that sometimes the people who are subjected to these conditions are people whose crime is simply in their agitation to obtain a free Government in British Guiana they have gone outside the area to which they were confined.
Another aspect of this subject makes it urgent that it be dealt with. There is


a great deal of discontent in British Guiana, discontent which finds expression even in the Right-wing Press. It was believed that when we set aside their democratically elected Government that at least there would be rapid progress in dealing with the basic economic ills of British Guiana. Indeed, one of the charges brought against members of the People's Progressive Party was that in the four months during which they were in office they failed to do a real job of work in tackling the economic problems of the country. We have discussed that issue before in this House. But even the Right-wing Press of British Guiana is now protesting about the fact that we have had dozens of commissions and reports and that there is a dictatorship in British Guiana with all the power in the world: but no solid progress is being made.
I should like to give one illustration. Two weeks ago, on 14th July, I asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was being done about the Brown Report on "Land Settlement Problems, and the Economic Production of Sugar Cane by Individual Farmers in British Guiana." I have no reason to believe that there has been any radical change in the situation in British Guiana since I asked that Question.
The reply was:
His report on the Economic Production of Sugar Cane by Individual Farmers has been discussed locally with the sugar producers"—
Note, merely discussed, little or nothing has been done—
who are in the best position to take action upon it, and Bookers Sugar Estates, Ltd., are launching a pilot scheme under the direction of an agriculturist from the Sudan Gezira Scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1954; Vol. 530, c. 39–40.]
Here we are, not four months but more than eight months after an elected Government of British Guiana has been set aside and we are told that recommendations which we understood had been accepted by the Government from the Brown Committee and from the Lacey Committee have not been carried out. It is a travesty to turn to Bookers Brothers, the great sugar interests in British Guiana for serious action. They are not concerned with promoting schemes to help individual farmers.
I did not give the Minister advance information of this question, but it is not unconnected with the issue of conditions

in the gaols. First, we take away the leaders elected by the people, then we put them in gaol, then we mix them with the criminal population and then apply both to the criminal and political prisoners conditions which I should be delighted if the Minister could now tell me are not as bad as I am led to believe. Are they up to standard? It would be a good thing for all concerned to have that point cleared up. I hope that they are not as bad as I have been led to believe.
I hope that so far as there are faults in the prison system they will now be remedied. We must remember that we are a dictatorship in British Guiana. The best way to make enemies for this country, and the best way to make the problems of British Guiana permanently insoluble, is to continue to behave in the way that, according to my information, our prison authorities are behaving.

7.30 p.m.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): I do not propose to make any more comments on the question of Cyprus because I think that when hon. and right hon. Members read tomorrow the statement I made earlier today, with the comments I made after that statement, in conjunction with the statement of my right hon. Friend, they will find that answers have been given to most of the points raised this afternoon, including those raised by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths).
I wish to deal briefly with the points raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), of which she gave me notice earlier this afternoon—that is to say, the first points she made dealing with prison conditions in British Guiana, particularly concerning Dr. Jagan. Dr. Jagan was recently transferred from Georgetown Prison to the penal settlement at Mazaruni, 60 miles in the interior. This settlement is healthy and isolated and has the advantages of elevation and good drainage. We have no information to lead us to suppose that there is overcrowding in this penal settlement and we understand that the transfer was made because of the better accommodation in the settlement. Offhand, I cannot give any particulars about the prisons in Georgetown, but I will get information on that question and


write to the hon. Lady about it. If conditions are bad there we shall see that they are improved.
The hon. Lady asked whether prisoners in general in British Guiana were getting a proper diet. The answer is that prisoners are fed in accordance with a statutory diet scale and the prison surgeons have power to vary the diet for medical reasons. At the Mazaruni settlement vegetable farming and animal husbandry are carried on by the prisoners and this ensures a supply of fresh vegetable produce and milk for the prison population. Miss Haglund visited the Colony and inspected the diet in the case of the Georgetown Prison and was apparently satisfied with it. I can only comment that the majority of prisoners have shown improvements in health and weight.
The third point concerned prison conditions in British Guiana with reference to hard labour. The hon. Lady asked whether political prisoners were sentenced to hard labour. At the moment, there are no political prisoners as such. There are a number of people who have been put into prison after being brought before the courts in the ordinary way for offences under the Emergency Orders. They have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment for actions against the law, not for political activities. In some of those cases the sentences have included hard labour, but I understand that Dr. Jagan was sentenced to six months' imprison-ment without hard labour. In any case, after an X-ray examination and a doctor's report Dr. Jagan has been excused strenuous exercise or any hard living while in prison. The hon. Lady asked about the state of the prison building in which Dr. Jagan is imprisoned, but perhaps she was not aware then that he had been transferred from Georgetown.

Miss Lee: I was not making that point particularly in regard to Dr. Jagan. It is always a fact that the prisoner who is head of an organisation is liable to have a little better treatment than the other prisoners. What I was concerned about was the report which had come to me about other members of the People's Progressive Party jailed for political reasons and still in Georgetown Jail.

Mr. Hopkinson: I have undertaken to look into the position of Georgetown Jail

on which I have not any information. I am informed that the buildings in the Mazaruni penal settlement are in good order and are what they should be.
The hon. Lady also raised a question about sugar production, about which she said she had not given me notice, and I am not in a position to give a detailed reply. I do know from personal knowledge and contact, however, that the heads of Booker Brothers are in great sympathy with schemes for developing tenant farms and small freeholdings in British Guiana. They believe it is right to encourage the establishment—one might also say the creation—of this middle-class of responsible people who will pull their weight in political matters. I cannot believe that Booker Brothers are in any way hindering the development along the lines the hon. Lady had in mind.

HOUSING (REQUISITIONED DWELLINGS)

7.36 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: For some time we have been discussing the question of Cyprus and from there we went to British Guiana. Now I hope to come down to earth and deal with a problem which is just as important to the ordinary man and woman of this country, but which may not affect so large a number. I want to raise with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government the question of requisitioned dwellings used for housing purposes.
As the House will remember, during the period of the war when people were being made homeless by enemy action and their houses were being destroyed the Government took powers to requisition empty dwellings for the purpose of housing families made homeless in air raids and other actions of the enemy. In most cases the Government requisitioned houses already empty because those who previously lived in them had gone to country areas. Some of those people were fairly well-off and others not so well off. In the post war years a number of those dwellings have been derequisitioned in cases in which the original owner wanted to come back and live in his house. For all practical purposes we are now left with a hard core for which it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to


proceed any further in the field of de-requisitioning unless the Minister does something about it.
I want to raise the question as it exists now. As the Parliamentary Secretary said in an answer to a Question a few days ago, there are now 69,400 premises under requisition for housing purposes. He estimated that at least 100,000 families are living in them and that gives an approximate figure of 325,000 persons. At least three-quarters of these families live in London, and to some extent in Birmingham and Liverpool and some of the other larger cities; but in the areas of 48 local authorities where there are more than six such families per 1,000 of the population there are 76,500 families concerned. In my own constituency of Acton, there are at present 767 families living in requisitioned dwellings.
I think that these figures can, as I have already said, be described as the hard core of the problem—and it is a hard core because practically all these local authorities cannot themselves, unaided, solve the problem of derequisitioning these buildings because nearly all of them have no land on which they can build new houses to transfer these people into so that the dwellings they occupy may be derequisitioned.
I raise this matter because I have been very concerned about the persistence of friends of the right hon. Gentleman who sit behind him who, for some time, have been urging him on to take a course of action which, in my view, would be unjust and which would create great hardship. The right hon. Gentleman set up a working party on this question of requisitioned dwellings and they have presented to him three reports. I do not propose to attempt to inflict upon the House any kind of summary of these reports, but I will say that the right hon. Gentleman is to some extent acting upon the recommendations contained therein; and I am not sure that by so acting he is doing the right thing by the local authorities and by the families who are to be displaced.
The working party put forward four main recommendations to deal with this problem. It said that where the number of families in requisitioned dwellings are between 2 and 3 per 1,000 of the population, and there are not more than

100 families, the whole of those dwellings should be derequisitioned by 10th December, 1955; that where the ratio is 3 to 5 families per 1,000 of the population, and there are not more than 250 families involved, all the dwellings should be derequisitioned by 10th December, 1956; and that where the ratio is somewhat higher—5 or 6 families per 1,000 of the population—and not more than 350 families are involved, the whole of those dwelling should be derequisitioned by 10th December, 1957.
Where the problem is more acute, and there are more than 6 families per 1,000 of the population, or more than 350 families together in the area of the local authority, the working party referred the matter to the Minister for his determination because it was unable to make a recommendation as the problem was so acute.
The right hon. Gentleman has been carrying out the first three recommendations, and he has now been issuing ultimatums to local authorities that by these particular dates, they must derequisition all their requisitioned property. That is leading to a great deal of hardship. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) raised this matter in the House a day or two ago, in a Question to the Minister, in which she asked:
if he is aware that his instruction to Southport Town Council, Lancashire, to serve notices to quit on 23 families living in requisitioned houses will mean that these tenants will be made homeless, as no instruction to rehouse has been made; and if he will notify the town council not to evict those families until suitable alternative accommodation has been offered them.
The Parliamentary Secretary declined any responsibility for the consequences of this, and threw it back on the Southport Town Council—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): rose—

Mr. Sparks: I propose to read what the hon. Gentleman said in reply. He stated:
My right hon. Friend has not instructed the council to serve notices to quit. The council were advised in October, 1952, that all requisitioned properties should be released by 10th December, 1953. As the council had failed to comply, my right hon. Friend issued


a direction to the town clerk on 20th May, 1954, that the properties still held on requisition should be released not later than 31st August next.
There was no regard whatever to what was to happen to the families in the derequisitioned houses.

Mr. Marples: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who wishes to be fair, would like to read a little further. He is now confusing derequisitioning with eviction. He will realise, if he reads an answer which I gave to a supplementary question by his hon. Friend, that I said that the council could acquire the premises—still retain them and keep the families in them—but on the normal and usual basis and not on the basis of requisitioning.

Mr. Sparks: I quite agree that that is so, but if the local authority refuses to do that what does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about it? Will he compel them? That is the whole point: he will not do that. It is no use telling the Southport Town Council and other councils that there is no need to put these people out into the street, that the councils can buy the houses or lease them. If the councils say, "We shall not do that," what will the right hon. Gentleman do? That is the whole point.
I was about to proceed a little further. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange produced a letter which was sent, presumably by the town clerk of Southport, to these 23 families in which the following sentence appeared, apparently at the end of the letter:
…if you fail to vacate the premises I shall reluctantly be compelled to take the appropriate steps to have you evicted from the premises."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1954; Vol. 530, c. 270, 272.]
It really is not good enough if this sort of thing is taking place in Southport, where the problem of requisitioning is not so acute as what it will be in London. I am afraid that if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that these tactics will succeed in London, Birmingham and Liverpool he is asking for a riot, because the folk just will not tolerate that sort of thing.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to the recommendations of the working party's report and to ask the Parliamentary Secretary not to adhere to those dates unless and until the local authorities concerned have made satisfactory provision for rehousing. I hope,

before I sit down, to make one or two suggestions as to how that could be done. Adherence to the dates in the working party's report will undoubtedly create hardship. There is no guarantee whatever that the families concerned will not be made homeless in the process, and no guarantee that urgent cases on the housing list, which are far more urgent than those of most of the families in requisitioned premises, will not be superseded by the transferring of families from requisitioned dwellings.
Therefore, the suggestions of the working party are largely inoperable, and they are unfair to families on the housing list because precedence is given to families in requisitioned dwellings. They are unacceptable to owners, because most of the owners of these dwellings do not want to receive them back with a family in occupation; they want vacant possession, which they claim they are entitled to, and they want vacant possession in order to be able to sell the property—

Mr. John Hay: No.

Mr. Sparks: I do not want to take up too much time, but some of my hon. Friends wish to say a few words on this subject, and I think they will satisfy the hon. Member that there are quite a fair number of such houses that have been vacated, are now up for sale, and have been for some months.

Mr. Hay: I do not think that the circumstances justify the sweeping accusation which the hon. Member has just made. We all know that there are a great many owners of requisitioned property who wish to get back into the houses which they formerly owned, and who, at the moment, are living in most cramped and unsatisfactory conditions.

Mr. Sparks: There are few such owners—

Mr. Hay: There are a great many.

Mr. Sparks: There are only a few dwellings in that category. Only a few such owners still have their dwellings requisitioned—

Mr. Hay: No.

Mr. Sparks: I say that there are only a few. I have had experience of this and I say that the number is very few. If there are owners whose houses have


been requisitioned, and who wish to rehouse their families in those houses, there is no local authority in the country which would not make special efforts to assist them. But a large number of dwellings already released from requisition have been acquired by the owners so that they can sell them and make a good price.

Mr. Hay: Quite untrue.

Mr. Sparks: It is not. I know what I am talking about—

Mr. Hay: So do I.

Mr. Sparks: I want to make a few suggestions about how this problem may be solved. I consider that the right hon. Gentleman must go much further than the recommendations contained in the report of the working party. But I would urge that he does not act in the way that his hon. Friends have suggested, because if he does he will create grave hardship. The Minister should consider making a scheme whereby as many as possible of these properties might be acquired by local authorities. I do not mean that they should all be so acquired, but there are a large number of houses which would be suitable for inclusion in local authority housing pools.
The Minister should request local authorities to submit to him schemes for the acquisition of these requisitioned dwellings, and, in addition, he should give loan sanction for the purpose and extend to such acquisitions the benefits of the housing subsidy. Such a scheme as I have suggested would be workable with financial help for reasons which I have not the time to discuss now. Such a course of action would help considerably towards solving the problem. I am not suggesting that property should be acquired in cases where the owners required it to live in and that in such cases they should be forced to sell their houses to local authorities. But such cases are few. In most cases the owners would be satisfied with a reasonable price for their house.
Local authorities would undoubtedly have to pay vacant possession value, and unless the proposal is coupled with the extension of rate subsidy they would find that the rents which they would have to charge would be impossibly high. It

would be essential that the Minister persuade the Exchequer to waive what is called recovery of the cost of conversion or improvement carried out to the property during the period of requisition.
In some cases, local authorities have spent money in converting requisitioned houses into flats, and it is a condition that when such property is sold, the value of the improvement must be deducted from the compensation payable. If local authorities acquired these houses, that condition should be waived and that would ease considerably the financial problem. In addition, these properties should be eligible for the improvement grant under the 1949 Housing Act.
I could say a good deal more on this subject but several of my hon. Friends wish to speak because this is a problem which affects not only London, but Birmingham, Liverpool and many other parts of the country. I repeat, if the Minister proposes to yield to the pressure of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and derequisition these premises by sending ultimatums to local authorities that from a certain date all dwellings must be de-requisitioned and the people living in them evicted, it will cause a great deal of hardship and suffering. I believe that my proposals would provide a better solution.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Percy Shurmer: I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has introduced this matter. I wish to discuss it from a different angle. The situation is different in Birmingham, where people who are dispossessed of their houses are found accommodation by the local authority, with the result that they are occupying houses which could have been occupied by people at present living in rooms.
Yesterday I had a Question on the Order Paper addressed to the Minister which, unfortunately, was not reached, and so I was unable to put a supplementary question to him. In my Question I asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government
whether he is aware that many houses have been derequisitioned in Birmingham and other cities while people are still living in rooms; and whether he will circularise all local authorities, recommending that only when a house is required for the occupation of the owner or a member of his family should it be de-requisitioned.


The written answer included the statement:
No. The derequisitioning of privately owned dwellinghouses does not reduce housing accommodation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,27th July, 1954; Vol. 53,1, c. 35.]
That is not true. If the houses were let again, or if they were required by the owner or a member of his family, that would be understandable. But the Ministry has acted far too hastily in this matter. In our large cities and towns there are thousands of people who are still living in rooms.
What is happening in Birmingham? There we requisitioned a number of large houses which were converted into flats; and I could take the Parliamentary Secretary to my constituency and show him dozens of houses only a stone's throw from my own home, including two beautiful flats, where all the windows and grates have been smashed by children. This property has been standing idle for the last six months. Yet nearby may be found examples of overcrowding, where eight and nine people are living in one room.
If that is what is called derequisitioning, it should not be allowed. We ought not to permit houses to be derequisitioned and to stand empty so that the owners can dispose of them at the highest price. We have over 50,000 people on our housing register in Birmingham, although our housing record is as high as that in any part of the country; but there have been a great many people who have come to Birmingham because there is plenty of work in the city.
My hon. Friend the Member for Acton mentioned land. We are short of land in Birmingham. I do not know where we can build houses for our people, and yet we find the houses are being left standing empty. I do not understand why the Department has allowed so many houses to stand unoccupied for sale to the highest bidder for as long as 12 months when, in the same road, other people may be living in overcrowded conditions. There is one road in my constituency along which, on Friday morning, a funeral procession will pass of a man and five children who were burnt to death in a little rat-trap of a house. We have 40,000 of these rat-traps in our city. I have represented Birmingham for some time and I know the position there.

There is road after road of derequisitioned houses many of which have been made into beautiful flats and many of which have been unoccupied for six or nine months, and sometimes more, simply because the Corporation have been able to derequisition them and place the tenants in new houses.
We cannot allow these conditions to continue. The Department talks about its wonderful housing programme and how it has stepped up housing as against other building.

Mr. Marples: Against what?

Mr. Shurmer: Against schools, for instance. The schools being built today had their foundations laid during the life of the Labour Government; but we are not discussing that now.
I am surprised that the Department acts so hastily in derequisitioning these houses. No house should be allowed to stand idle in any city for any length of time where people live huddled together in rooms. That state of affairs makes for unhappiness and it does not help the morale or the health of the people. It causes incidents such as the terrible tragedy that we had in my constituency on Sunday morning.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not say that this derequisitioning makes for more housing accommodation. I want him to take action to tell local authorities that until the situation is eased no house should be derequisitioned unless the owner wants it for his own accommodation or for that of his family. Owners should not be allowed to hold people to ransom, selling to the highest bidder and leaving other people to live in rooms. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some encouragement to believe that something will be done in the matter.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: I am glad that this subject has been raised. In this House we deal with many different problems and spend a great deal of time on various aspects of our affairs—foreign policy and all sorts of important questions. Now we are discussing a human problem of the greatest possible importance.
It is easy to talk about the rights of owners and about owners being deprived


of houses for a considerable time, but when we have this extraordinary human problem in connection with housing, with which all of us have to deal, something more ought to be done than has been done so far. Today virtually no housing authority has the right to requisition a new property in order to alleviate housing difficulties. If only because of that it is vital that housing authorities should be allowed to retain the requisitioned properties which they now have for as long a period as possible.
If the Minister directs these authorities to release the requisitioned properties they hold, then he is making the conditions such that the position of the authorities is made impossible. I should like to illustrate this argument in a practical way by reference to boroughs which form part of the constituency which I have the honour to represent. In the Borough of Stoke Newington, which has a population of only 50,000, there are 607 requisitioned properties now held by the housing authority. That represents 1,128 housing units and in those units there reside 4,060 persons. Eight per cent. of the population of the borough reside in requisitioned properties. I add the information to show the importance of the figure, that we have a housing list of some 2,300 families.
In the Borough of Hackney there are 1,803 properties held on requisition, representing 3,413 units, and the live cases on the housing list number over 6,000. When one remembers that in both boroughs, as in many other parts of the country, the only practical way in which the problem can be dealt with and new houses built is by pulling down existing properties and building on the sites, with the obligation of rehousing the people who are deprived of the places they live in when they are pulled down, and when one also remembers the further difficulties that will be created with the coming into law of two new Measures shortly—the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill and the Landlord and Tenant Bill—it is obvious how essential it is that the housing authorities should retain for as long as possible the requisitioned properties which they now hold.
There is another point which I desire to raise. As I understand the position, the maximum allowance permitted as reimbursement for repairs is £25 per unit. That is the ceiling figure. When one

knows the type of requisitioned houses —very often large old properties which need a considerable amount of repair—one realises that the figure is totally inadequate. The Borough of Stoke Newington made direct representations to the Ministry and pointed out that in the years 1950–51 and 1952–53 the amount of repairs worked out at an average of over £38 per year. Now they are told that the amount must be limited to £25. I respectfully suggest that that figure is inadequate to keep these properties in habitable condition.
I would also mention a case that occurred in the Borough of Hackney which shows the way in which the Ministry acts in this problem. The Minister directed the council to derequisition a property in which the council's licensee, an old-age pensioner now widowed, was living at a rent of 15s. per week. The decision to derequistion was opposed very strongly by the council, but the Minister insisted upon it and said that the Ministry had arranged with the owner that the licensee could remain, presumably at the same rent.
Now the owner, as he is entitled to do, has increased the rent to the standard rent, which is at least twice the amount the old lady was paying as a licensee of the council. The old lady has no other means except her old-age pension, and she is unable to pay this amount. She is not upon the council's housing list, and is not eligible to be upon it. As she has no money to pay the rent, there is no solution to her problem. That is the direct result of interference by the Minister in a particular case about which I have written to him.
I hope the Minister will look again at this problem of de-requisitioning. There is a great deal in the fact that if one travels through London and its surroundings one sees many houses which for months have "For Sale" boards upon them. I know that an argument can be put forward, as was said by an hon. Member opposite in an intervention, that an owner whose property has been requisitioned for a considerable time may want it for himself. Those cases are few, and in most cases where an owner desires his property back after he has been kept out of it for a considerable time and can show that he wants to live in it and has nowhere else to live, the local authority


will do everything it possibly can to restore it to him.
But where is the justification for de-requisitioning a property when the owner merely desires to dispose of it and, under the conditions in which we live today, is ready to allow it to remain empty with a "For Sale" board upon it until someone with sufficient money to buy it comes along? Surely it is wrong that that should happen in the present state of affairs.
One of my hon. Friends suggested a scheme for dealing with this problem, and many other suggestions can be made, I suggest that the proper way to deal with derequisitioning is to recognise the difficulty of housing authorities and say to them, "The Ministry will not make any direction unless the council's consent to derequisitioning." Surely it is the Minister's duty to help in every way possible towards a solution of the problem. It is not a question of party politics; it is a question of dealing with a human problem. I urge the Minister to look at the problem of derequisitioning anew and consider the possibility of making arrangements whereby councils can be assisted in the fine work which they are doing in rehousing and not have obstacles put in their way in the efforts which they are making.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. W. E. Wheeldon: I hope that the Minister will accept the very strong submissions made by my hon. Friends and agree that the matter is one of very grave concern indeed to the majority of local authorities. It is of particular concern to those which have long waiting lists or applicants for municipal houses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) said, it is of particular interest and concern in Birmingham, and indeed in my own constituency.
If the housing circumstances were normal, there would be something to be said for the Minister's present policy of derequisitioning, but I wish to impress upon the Minister that the housing conditions in the majority of our towns and cities are certainly not normal, despite the fact that we are building about 300,000 houses a year. Unless we appreciate how abnormal the housing

situation is today, we cannot possibly judge the present scheme of derequisitioning.
Birmingham has 50,000 applicants on its register. That by no means illustrates the gravity of the housing problem in Birmingham. In addition to those applicants for houses, there are many thousands of families in the city who have houses which cannot by any means be described as fit for habitation. Many of these people have been waiting for houses for 10 years. Many of them are grossly overcrowded.
I know from personal experience that there are families in my constituency consisting of up to 10 people who have no chance of being rehoused by the local authority at an early date. This is for the simple reason that, although large numbers of houses are being built, the number of four-bedroomed and five-bedroomed houses is comparatively small. Most of the requisitioned houses are fairly large compared with the municipal houses now being built; they are old but they provide the necessary accommodation, and in many respects they are eminently suitable for applicants with large families who cannot get local authority houses except by waiting for many years.
We have also to remember that there come to the offices of a local authority in a large city like Birmingham week by week and month by month cases for rehousing submitted by the medical officers of health because of the presence of active tuberculosis in families. There are also houses which, because of their dangerous condition, have to be demolished, and they are by no means few in number.
I understand that in the Birmingham courts last year there were more than 1,000 eviction cases. These have also to be considered by local authorities. In many instances the evicted persons have been tenants of incontestable soundness and the rent has been paid regularly, but simply because of the pressure of the present law, which the Government refused to alter in the recent Bill, they are being evicted. I had such a case only last week. A person who had lived in the same house for 41 years with her parents was, on the death of the second parent, immediately served with notice to quit and was evicted. These


are the conditions which apply, and that is the background against which the Minister must judge the effectiveness and the humanity of the present scheme of de-requisitioning. These conditions cannot be regarded as normal.
Now that the circumstances have changed people who in some instances left their own houses to escape from the bombing—I am not blaming anyone for doing that; I lived in the centre of a very heavily bombed area, and I know what those conditions meant, but other people were compelled to remain where they were—want to come back. If they want their former houses in order to accommodate their own families, I should raise no objection to that, and, as far as I know, local authorities give those cases every consideration. I have yet to heat of a single case of a local authority declining to permit the retransfer of those families. On the other hand, as my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) said, it is undoubtedly true that many people want to regain possession of these houses simply in order to sell them and make some money. That is grossly unfair in the conditions which exist in our cities and boroughs.
The pressure which the Ministry is exerting upon local authorities to get rid of their requisitioned houses should be dropped. It is certainly not justified. In Birmingham, as the Minister knows, over 2,000 families are now living in requisitioned property. In view of the ordinary demand for houses, it is impossible for the local authority to derequisition except on a very slow and gradual basis. It is a matter of very grave concern to local housing authorities.
I hope that the Minister will assent to the submissions which have been made tonight. The present policy of the Government is anti-social and against the interests of the community, and ought not to be pursued in existing circumstances. So long as there is a desperate shortage of houses, no pressure should be exercised by the Minister. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to assure us that a change of policy is to take place and that local authorities will be permitted to work their housing schemes in their own way and will not have to deal with requisitioned houses as suggested by the Minister.

8.23 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: The reasons which animate the Government in their approach to the problem of derequisitioning are based not upon social arguments, but upon purely financial considerations. The Parliamentary Secretary will probably remind us that the cost of requisitioned property represents a direct charge upon the Exchequer. We know that the difference between the compensation paid to the owner of requisitioned property and the amount of rent charged by the local authority to the occupant of that property has to be borne by somebody, and is, in fact, borne out of Exchequer funds and not out of local rates.
In those circumstances, if the Government wage an economy campaign and start looking for items of expenditure which can be cut they soon consider the question of requisitioned properties. As has already been pointed out by my hon. Friends, however, the need for housing is as great as it was two, three, four or five years ago. In those circumstances it is very undesirable that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, or the Government generally, should maintain this pressure upon local authorities to derequisition even faster than they have done hitherto.
The pressure campaign organised by the Minister has not been without some effect. There have been not insubstantial reductions in the number of requisitioned properties in various districts, resulting in not insubstantial savings to the Exchequer. We have been told by the Government that there must be a maximum of about 300,000 new houses a year; that is about as much as the economy can be expected to stand. The Ministry has now realised that schools, factories, hospitals and other such buildings are needed, and that the whole of our building force and materials cannot be directed solely to providing housing accommodation. Having come to that decision, it is surely all the more inappropriate to continue this pressure campaign.
What is the position in any local authority which has a long waiting list for houses? Every time anyone is pushed out of requisitioned premises he becomes another applicant on the waiting list of the local housing authority. In those circumstances, the number of applicants can never be reduced,


because if a local authority has 1,000 families living in requisitioned properties, when the derequisitioning of those properties is carried out all those families have to be provided with other accommodation by the local authority. Thus, the local authority is very much worse off than it was before.

Mr. Sparks: I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend is quite correct in saying that a local authority must provide other accommodation. There is no obligation whatsoever upon the local authority to do so. If a local authority receives a direction from the Minister that on and from a certain date it must de-requisition all its requisitioned houses it can serve notices to quit upon the occupants of those houses and they must get out. There is no obligation upon the local authority to rehouse them.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I agree with my hon. Friend. When I mentioned the obligation of a local authority I was referring to its social and moral obligation. It can certainly serve notices to quit upon every tenant of such premises.

Mr. Sparks: Local authorities are doing it.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In some cases local authorities are doing it, but any local authority which has serving on it men and women with social consciences does not do such a thing. A social conscience is not encouraged by the present Government, however.
The Minister admits that it is necessary to have some kind of plan, because without one it will not be possible for him to maintain the building programme at the present level of 300,000 houses a year, but when we try to find out how this plan is being operated we are given somewhat vague answers.
Only the other day the Minister of Housing and Local Government in reply to Questions on this aspect of the matter said that the total number of houses completed depended on prior planning and on sufficient labour and materials being available. We all know that. He said that resources varied from region to region. I would quote one sentence of his. He said:
While I have, therefore, had to take some steps to see that the programme does not get out of step, I do not attempt to control it within

precise figures."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 20th July, 1954; Vol. 530, c. 1157.]
I think hon. Members and the country are entitled to know what steps the Minister is taking to see that the programme does not get out of step and how this mechanism, which is being somewhat mysteriously operated somewhere, is applied.
In some cases it so happens that a local authority that has, perhaps, done exceptionally well finds that, by reason of these mysterious steps the Minister reserves to himself to take to see that the programme does not get out of step, its housing activities are being retarded. That is an additional reason, which I shall not develop now, why it is difficult for the local authorities to embark upon this policy of wholesale de-requisitioning which the Minister is trying to operate. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to provide us with some information on some of the points raised by my hon. Friends, because I can assure him that there is very deep feeling on the subject all over the country.

8.31 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): I am sure the House is grateful to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) for raising what is a very human problem. It is a problem the discussion of which can sometimes generate a great deal of heat, and perhaps sometimes it is seen out of perspective in consequence. However, that is because the human factors involved tend to cause us to be excited and so to confuse judgment.
If any passion is to be generated I think that I personally am in a position to be more heated than any other Member of the House, for the reason that when I came out of the Army after five years' service my flat was requisitioned and I had to live in rooms. It was left empty for some time while I had to argue with a London authority about going back to my own flat. I did not leave that flat to sell it for a large sum of money. I left it because I was, not compelled, because I voluntarily joined the Territorial Army, but required as a Territorial to go on service.
Thus it is not always the fact that the property owner leaves his property because he wants to make a profit out of


it. It is not always the fact that property that is requisitioned is the property of an owner who leaves it because he wants to make a profit out of it. Eventually I got my flat back. I mention this experience to show that I have some personal knowledge of requisitioning, to show that I know what it is like to expect to go back to one's home only to find a little notice on the door saying, "Requisitioned," even though the place is still empty and may remain so for a considerable time.

Mr. Sparks: The hon. Gentleman had no objection to a bombed-out family being in his flat while he was away, had he?

Mr. Marples: No, but I rather hoped that there would be a place for me to live in when I came back. It is not unreasonable to enjoy occupying one's own flat. It was not unreasonable that I should look forward to enjoying the occupation of my own flat when I came back. That is not an unreasonable request to make after five years' service. However, I had quite a dispute about it, and it took a lot of argument before I got it back. I realise—and I want to make it clear— that the human aspect of this problem is sometimes difficult to calculate.
The hon. Member for Acton was kind enough to give me notice of some of the things that he said. At the moment, properties are being steadily released, but most people in the country are not in the 48 difficult areas in London. No new requisitions are now being made. When the Government took office there were about 86,000 properties held; that represented 130,000 families. The number is down to approximately 66,500, and that is 100,000 families, and the great majority of those—over 50,000—are in the London area.
The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) raised two points. One was the financial burden on the Treasury. He dealt with that so skilfully that there is no point in my labouring that theme. He also said that we were retarding housing. He uses words in a very odd way at times. I am glad to tell him that Lambeth is now building six times more houses than in 1951, and a deputation I saw the other day seemed to think it satisfactory. I think the hon. and gallant Member covers the Lambeth area.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In order to clarify the situation, I represent the Brixton division of Lambeth, which includes two other constituencies as well.

Mr. Marples: They are fortunate in being so well represented.
The Working Party made two Reports and it is on the recommendations of that Working Party that the Minister is, in part, acting. It is not a question of acting on his own view, it is a question of acting on the recommendations of the Working Party, which was composed of representatives of all local authority associations. There was a representative of the Association of Municipal Corporations, which represents all the big boroughs. In the first Report, the Working Party said that authorities with between one and two families per thousand of the population in requisitioned property should release the property at the end of this year. In the second Report it recommended that other authorities, with up to six families per thousand of the population in requisitioned property, should be set a time table for releasing them by the end of 1957.
That deals only with those local authorities where the problem is not great. As the hon. Member for Acton rightly pointed out, the Working Party was unable to reach any conclusions on the 48 authorities, almost all in London, which had more than six families per thousand of their population in requisitioned property. The Working Party made no recommendation about those authorities. My right hon. Friend has not decided yet what line of action he will take in this connection and I will call his attention to the suggestions which have been made tonight, including those constructive suggestions made by the hon. Member for Acton. I will see that they form part of the agenda when this matter is being discussed. I am grateful to the hon. Member for his suggestions.
We are pressing local authorities to reduce their holding of requisitioned property within the recommendations of the Working Party, and in doing so we have asked them to pay particular attention to those cases where owner-occupiers are suffering hardship through being deprived of their property. That is a point which was raised by the hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer).
Hon. Members have no doubt armed themselves with the Interim Report of the Working Party. They will see, on page 6, that the evidence submitted by the Association of Requisitioned Property Owners was fairly reasonable. It did not ask that property should be derequisitioned so that that owners could make a profit. It said
that requisitioned properties should be released in the following order of priority: (i) to the owner who requires the property for his own occupation.
I think no one would dispute that many people have property which they want for their sons or married daughters, and they have some right to it
(ii) to the owner who resides in part of the property, and there is incompatibility with the licencees in the other part.
I think every hon. Member knows how difficult it is when two ladies share the same kitchen. More friction and domestic vicissitude has been caused by that than by almost any other cause. I will not enter into the reasons which cause it to happen, but I think the conclusion which I have reached is the right conclusion. The third category is
the owner who has been, or is, compelled to remove to a district other than that where the requisitioned property is, and is in consequence suffering financial hardship.
Many cases occur where a man has had to move from, for example, Birmingham to Manchester. If he has requisitioned property in Birmingham, he may suffer a good deal financially.
If hon. Members will look at the evidence given by the Association of Requisitioned Property Owners, they will see that the property owners did not make extravagant claims. We in the Ministry have always impressed upon local authorities that they must try to judge the relative hardship, because it is a relative hardship in many cases, and it is a judgment which is not easy to make in the majority of cases, because somebody will have hardship inflicted upon them. The Working Party said that it had a good deal of sympathy with these representations and my right hon. Friend also has sympathy with them, but I do not think he has unduly pressed any local authority to derequisition a house unnecessarily. Derequisitioning is not synonymous with eviction. Houses were requisitioned under Emergency Regulations, either

those of 1939–15 years ago—or those of 1945—nine years ago. They were requisitioned in an emergency. That does not mean that the occupants should quit. The local authority can do many things. First, they can lease the property from the owner by agreement or apply for a compulsory purchase order which will be submitted to my right hon. Friend, and in many cases they have done that. They can also say to the owner, "Will you take part of it and leave the tenants in the other part?"

Mr. Wheeldon: In the instance I quoted, derequisitioning is absolutely synonymous with the eviction of the lessee.

Mr. Marples: I will look into that, but generally speaking it is not necessarily so. The hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) mentioned a case at Southport. In that particular case, my right hon. Friend acted, not under the second Interim Report of the Working Party, but under the first Interim Report, in which it was recommended that it should be released by December, 1953. Southport is a constituency with a certain amount of resources. I have heard harsh things said about certain seaside towns and the resources which they have. They can take over that property, if they wish, at any time. As a matter of fact, some of the local authorities have been singularly successful in taking over property. Manchester are buying 15 and negotiating for a further 289. Sheffield are buying 86. Bristol has purchased 86 over the last three years and are still negotiating for a further 100 properties. Leeds have acquired 23 while a further 30 are subject to active negotiation.

Mr. Sparks: That is all right, so far as it goes; but what is the hon. Gentleman going to do with people like the Southport Town Council who refuse to buy and are not prepared to buy? On the other hand, he is insisting that they must derequisition. That means that families have to go out.

Mr. Marples: The local authority have a duty under the 1936 Housing Act to the people in their area. If any local authority fall down on their particular task, it is up to my right hon. Friend to consider what action should be taken if they do not carry out the statutory duties.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Town Clerk of Southport, in the opening sentences of his letter, informed 27 tenants in requisitioned houses that he had instructions from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government that they must be out by last Monday? Has he asked for a copy of the letter sent by the Town Clerk, and will he see that, when any instructions are given about derequisitioning, along with the instructions there is a request to rehouse the people concerned? Is he aware that in Southport people were taken from their own areas in Liverpool and Bootle, not at their own request, and were sent into this area by the local authorities concerned? Now they have lost their title to housing in both Liverpool and Bootle because they have been out of the area for 10 or 12 years. These are matters which are giving great concern, and the Southport people are being told that they are—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The hon. Lady must not develop a question into a speech.

Mrs. Braddock: —they are only allowed until 31st August and then they must go out or they will be evicted. Will he say whether he agrees with that, and what was the instruction given?

Mr. Marples: I can only reaffirm what was said at Question time on that particular case, that neither my right hon. Friend nor the Ministry have given any instruction that tenants shall be evicted. I will ask for a copy of the letter and will look at the first paragraph to see whether I can analyse what the Town Clerk said and what his reasons were. I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend has said no such thing. He has not said that they shall be evicted, and we are urging, as much as we possibly can, that all local authorities should acquire the property, which was the point made by the hon. Member for Acton. He went further and made suggestions about monetary arrangements, because his mind is always acute on local authority finances; but we will certainly look at his suggestions for assisting the purchase.
I want to make these comments regarding the purchase or leasing of properties. The hon. Member for Acton said that if a house had been improved or converted at Exchequer expense, when a local

authority bought it it would pay a price arrived at on the assumption that the house was still in the state in which it was requisitioned. A great many of these houses were converted after requisitioning, at Government expense. The value of the properties has, therefore, been increased. The Government can seek to recover these increased values from the local authorities if they buy the houses. But whatever we can do in theory, in practice we have been extremely lenient and have made in effect a concealed grant to the purchase The hon. Member for Acton will be well aware of this.
The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) called my attention to a particular case. I should like to look into it myself before the Recess and I will write to the hon. and learned Member. If any hon. Member has a case of hardship—as, for instance, the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange thought she had at Southport—and will write to my right hon. Friend or to me, we will do our utmost to see that there is no hardship. It it is not the intention to make local authorities evict people. Our idea is to carry out the recommendations of the Working Party, where no hardship is involved, by seeing that a local authority acquires the houses on a proper basis; that is, not on an emergency basis.

Mrs. Braddock: Will the hon. Gentleman give instructions to local authorities that if they require houses to be de-requisitioned, there is an obligation upon them to see that the people who are being dispossessed are being found suitable alternative accommodation?

Mr. Marples: They have that already. Under existing legislation, local authorities have a duty to house people in their area; the hon. Member for Acton will confirm this. It would not be right for my right hon. Friend to lay down what priority a local authority should follow in allocating its pool of housing accommodation.

Mrs. Braddock: This is most important to the people who are likely to find themselves on the streets. Has the Minister said that a local authority, although it is required or is asked to derequisition, must not do so until it is able to offer suitable alternative accommodation to its tenants who will be dispossessed?

Mr. Marples: Generally speaking, we have given the notice recommended by the Working Party—that is, over 12 months—that a local authority should either derequisition the house or acquire it on another basis; and it is the authority's job to house its people in its area.
We do not lay down orders of priorities, not even whether an ex-Service man should be given priority; in some areas such a person cannot even get on the housing list. The allocation of the pool of accommodation is a matter for a local authority to decide. If it thinks that a family in requisitioned property is in greater hardship than a soldier coming out of the Forces, it gives the proper priorities. The Minister cannot lay down what an authority should do. It would be resented and it would not work, because local conditions vary greatly.

Mr. Weitzman: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that when the Ministry directs a local council to derequisition property, with the result that people have no home, there is an obligation on the local council to rehouse those people? If so, what is the authority for saying that there is any such obligation?

Mr. Marples: When my right hon. Friend asks a local authority to derequisition, it is left to that authority to acquire the property, either on lease, by putting in a compulsory purchase order—

Mr. Weitzman: Where is the obligation?

Mr. Marples: The general obligation is under the 1936 Act.

Mr. Sparks: An authority might refuse to carry it out.

Mr. Marples: Perhaps I should not mention it in this context, but Coventry refused to carry out certain things and three commissioners were appointed. If a local authority does not carry out its statutory obligation, it is up to the Government to take proper action. I stress that my right hon. Friend has never told a local authority that it should evict people, and I hope no one in the House will say that he has. The Acton Borough Council called together a number of the 48 "hard core" authorities, as they are termed, to consider the problem and we

hope that they will press forward with the reduction of their holdings or give constructive suggestions, as the hon. Member for Acton did. We at the Ministry are prepared to listen to any constructive suggestions which hon. Members may have for overcoming a very grave and very nearly insoluble problem.
I want to assure hon. Members that it is sometimes very heartbreaking when people come to see me about these matters, as they sometimes do. The other day we had to consider the case of an old lady of 78 in a requisitioned house with incompatible tenants; they were at loggerheads all the time, and she did not know which way to turn. What does one do in a case like that—turn her out of the house or turn the others out? I assure the House that my right hon. Friend is fully aware of this grave human problem, and we will consider carefully any constructive suggestions which are made.

Mr. Shurmer: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that if a serious international situation arose, the Government would commandeer everything necessary for the benefit of the nation. Why is it that the Ministry, who can act if they like, allow so many vacant properties to stand idle for months on end in the large towns and cities which are so badly overcrowded, simply because the owners are waiting to get the greatest amount of money for those houses? Surely it is just as important to requisition properties for the benefit of the morale of the people in peace-time as it is in war-time?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Ellis Smith.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. A few days ago there was posted in the Lobby of this House an indication from Mr. Speaker that after my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) had raised certain matters I would have an opportunity of catching Mr. Speaker's eye. I have been here very nearly the whole day waiting for that opportunity. Now I find that by an arrangement which I know nothing about, and of which no indication was given, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) is called. I understand that he is raising a matter of some substance. My point was a short one; it would take about 10 minutes and it would be


followed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport who would occupy, I suppose, about another 10 minutes.
Surely, if one has had an indication in writing, posted on the wall, that one would be fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye after the debate on the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton—though I entirely agree that it is within the right of the occupant of the Chair to select any speaker he wishes at any time—the hon. Member who has had that intimation should reasonably expect to be called.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I know nothing about that arrangement. In any event, this debate has not followed that arrangement at all. This debate has taken place on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. What I am trying to do is to meet the wishes of the House and to proceed to the next subject.

Mr. Sparks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it not correct that if my hon. Friend wishes to remain here he will be called in due course and that the debate on this Motion will not be closured?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is nothing to do with the Closure. Unfortunately, I cannot call more than one hon. Member at a time.

Mr. de Freitas: I am only protesting that, having stood in the queue, I was not called in due order as indicated by Mr. Speaker. I think that is quite wrong.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If I had called the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) would have made his protest.

Mr. de Freitas: No, his subject was due to come up tomorrow.

SPORTS FACILITIES (GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE)

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I made no complaint about that interjection because it is only consistent with what I have had to contend with all my life in watching over the interests of the people to whom I belong.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I hope my hon. Friend is not suggesting that I am not looking after the interests of the people I represent?

Mr. Smith: All my hon. Friend has to do is to look at the record of the General Elections since 1930 to find the answer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) and I have been pressed by many municipalities, by trade union organisations and by other public-spirited people to raise this question tonight. My hon. Friend is privileged to be an alderman of the Stoke City Council and is a member of the Education Committee. She has a long record of service and welcomes the opportunity of speaking on their behalf in this debate. I shall try to provide evidence to show the correctness of the line we are taking, I shall make some observations upon the position of British sport and I shall appeal for more Government encouragement. Let me make it clear that neither I nor my hon. Friend will make any reflection on the public-spirited men and women who run the voluntary organisations of this country; in my view, they deserve more encouragement and more financial support.
There is great concern in the important industrial area we represent, and also in the greatest industrial area in the country where some of us live, as the following extract from the "Evening Sentinel" of last night shows:
The Lord Mayor of Stoke-on-Trent (Alderman Mrs. Barker) intimated last night that she would ask the City Council on Thursday for better facilities for youth athletes. 'I am going to remind them of what has been happening to youth athletics,' she said. I am going to tell them what we need.' Urging the athletes to aim at the Olympic Games, she added, 'Even if you do not get there, you will be the better for trying'.
In the same locality another municipality is making provisions for a cycle track and other things for the North Staffordshire Harriers.
For years in this country there has been too much complacency and there is a danger in leaving matters until it is nearly too late. We had evidence of that this afternoon. We are constantly having evidence of it in the international field, and some of us could provide evidence to show that the same thing is happening in industry. Tonight, however, I am speaking about sport and the need for playing fields.
Recently we have had some severe shocks and we deserved them. In my view it is not too late, provided the Government profit by our recent experience. According to "John Bull" of 24th July, we did not win a single contest in the Olympic Games in 1952, and also, according to that paper, we do not hold one Olympic record. Those who saw the international football games at Wembley, or at Berne and Basle, on television, were bound to admire the Bulgarians, the Hungarians and now the Germans. The Germans lost the war and, for the second time in my life, we won the war, and yet we find ourselves in this position. At the same time, there is no doubt that we have now received a jolt and the effect of that jolt should be reflected in this House with the idea of urging the Government to take action.
We have had further evidence at the British Games Meeting at the White City and at other international assemblies. Ferenc Puskas, captain of the Hungarian football team said—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not quite clear how far the Ministry of Education can be responsible for British football.

Mr. Smith: Those who are very closely acquainted with the responsibilities of the Ministry of Education know that in connection with the provision of playing fields and the encouragement of sport on an area and regional basis the Ministry are supplying coaches for the schools. Our boys are now receiving the benefit of coaching at the expense of the Ministry of Education and I speak from that standpoint. The captain of the Hungarian team said:
I will tell you what is wrong with English football. I saw it at Wembley and at Budapest. You have not yet learned from your experience. You stick to the conventions of 25 years ago. The English experts have ignored the enormous progress made on the Continent.
It is time that we profited by our experience, and the responsibility for that lies at present with the Minister of Education.
I believe that we can produce many more men like Roger Bannister, Chris Chataway and Stanley Matthews provided that we modernise our methods and profit by recent experience, that we organise to achieve our objective and the Ministry

of Education provides more financial support.
There is more in this issue than appears on the surface and more than some middle-class politicians may think. A representative of the "Daily Express" who recently attended a football match in Baku said that the people there were very full of life and vitality. So are our own people. Provided that they are given the chance and that we modernise and organise, I am convinced that within two or three years we shall again be able to hold our own in international events.
I used to be very indignant when before the war certain hon. Members cast serious reflections on our fellow-countrymen. It was common in those days to compare our people unfavourably with the people of Germany. It upset me because I was convinced that if our young people had a chance they would prove dynamic and be able to hold their own with the people of any other part of the world. The answer which proved who was right came during the war, during that 12 months when we stood alone and our young men defended this country which became the base for the Allies, while some people were taking a long time to clarify their attitude towards the war. It was our own young men and women who saved this country and dealt a devastating blow against those Germans who were seeking to dominate the world.
Those young men and women are as good as ever they were, but we are now all put to the test because we need to modernise and organise in order to give them a chance so that they may hold their own with other races. If Britain is to remain a great country, if we are to make the contribution in life which our history deserves, physical fitness will be more important in the future than it has been in the past.
It has been my privilege to have been associated with many of the leading scientists of this country and to know the work they are doing. We are in the forefront of scientific development. The same applies to engineering, to steel and to work at the coal-face; but unless we adopt such a policy as will be outlined this evening, we shall not have a state of democracy which will enable us to be so dynamic and physically fit as people on the Continent and in other parts of the world. With those ideas we


are pleading that more support shall come from the Ministry of Education.
Physical fitness is more important than ever and will be still more important in the future. It is a contribution to good health. Those of us who have been as near death's door as it is possible to be and those who have been concerned with domestic tragedies know that we would not have pulled through but for good bodily health and physique. We want our fellow-countrymen to be in a position not only to produce more and to work harder, but to save needless suffering. We can save life if physique is as fit as it should be. We are pleading for a policy which will save life and eliminate needless suffering, a policy which has a good psychological effect in regard to one's attitude to life.
This also has an important effect on output. For many years it was my privilege to act in a representative capacity. It is easy to speak here, but where one is put to the test is in industry. Having been engaged in one of the largest concerns in this country, where 25,000 are employed daily, I know—as do many others who know the importance of maintaining the morale and the good will of the people—that this has an important bearing on output. Friends of mine tell me that when Manchester United are playing well and winning the output at Metropolitan Vickers can be relied upon to go up.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I feel that the hon. Member is going fairly wide of the responsibilities of the Ministry of Education.

Mr. Smith: Is that so, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? If you follow closely you will find that I am leading up to proving that the Ministry of Education has responsibility for the provision of playing fields, the provision of financial support and for the policy I am outlining. If in the future this country is to hold its own this policy has to be adopted. The hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston), who has great responsibility for the running of one of the largest foundries in the country, states that when Tottenham is doing well the output there goes up.

Mr. George Thomas: It is the same in Cardiff.

Mr. Smith: Anyone who knows anything about modern industrial life, as the hon. Gentleman does, will know the importance of physical fitness to the people to whom I belong. Before coming here, I knew the tempo of industrial life, of which no one has any idea unless he has been engaged in competitive industry and had the experience of competition that many had between the wars. We were subjected to micro-motion study—timed not to seconds but timed by films, every operation being watched. This had an effect upon one's physique. Then there is the effect of repetition work upon the nervous system.
We are constantly being appealed to for harder and faster work. All this indicates the need for more relaxation, for the provision of other interests, for joys and thrills to which our people are entitled. Too many people in this country have talked for years about the need for harder and faster work. Seldom do they talk of the effect of that on the physique of our industrial population. If this country is to maintain its own in the face of world competition in the future, the Ministry of Education will have to organise along the lines for which we are pleading.
There are too many in Britain who are constantly blaming people rather than understanding why people act in the way they do. Modern industrial life demands modernised sport, physical fitness and relaxation. That urgently requires organised State and municipal action and encouragement. What do we find? Here I would interpolate that I believe in giving credit where credit is due. Those of us who have been in the House for nearly 20 years have good cause to bless those who now provide us with the Library facilities that they do compared with what was available when we first came here. I have here some evidence provided by the Librarian to show the correctness of what I am saying. It states:
There does not seem to be much of relevance in HANSARD except for your Question of 22nd June, 1948.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am very sorry. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Member's speech, but the subject he has chosen is "Recreation fields and the responsibility of the Minister of Education." I cannot see how the Library comes into that.

Mr. Smith: That is very unfortunate, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I will restrain myself in that matter. Some of us, however, know something about Standing Orders; we have had some experience in this House; we are students of affairs and understand matters fairly well. We have also had experience of presiding over some of the largest assemblies in this country. Therefore, what I was seeking to do was to provide evidence to show that, just as I respect the Chair, so I respect the services of those in the Library. All I was doing was to give them a pat on the back, something which they seldom get and which, in my view, they deserve, for the service they render us.
The Librarian goes on in this letter to say, and this I hope you will note in particular, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the financial assistance referred to by the Minister
in answering your Question is that given by the Minister of Education under the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937"—
have you noted that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?—
and Section 53 of the Education Act, of 1944.
What we are pleading for is an extension of these Acts—for their full implementation and for increased expenditure out of the total sum which is allocated to the Ministry of Education for its purposes. The estimate for this grant in 1953 was £200,000. In 1954 and 1955 it is to be reduced to £140,000. While the revenue derived from sport includes £1,340,000 from football, a total State grant of £140,000 is disgraceful. The Government take approximately £4 million out of sport, which is scandalous. I ask for an increased grant and more financial encouragement for physical fitness and sport.
We have voluntary workers in the industrial areas who are doing wonderful work. In Stoke-on-Trent there is a man, known by the young people affectionately as "Pop" Daniels, who has given 25 years' service to youth activities. He is typical of thousands of public-spirited men and women who have devoted their lives to the encouragement of physical fitness, and who work harmoniously with the local education authorities.
I ask that there should be further encouragement for such people, and that more playing fields be provided in areas where there are now none at all. Our children are summoned by the police for playing in the streets, but they have nowhere else to play. While some children are fortunate enough to enjoy the facilities afforded at Eton or Cambridge and Oxford and other places, in the areas where the work is done there are no playing fields at all.
In Stoke-on-Trent, one of our industrial areas, we have not one sports centre—not a single cinder track. In Manchester the Northern Athletic Arena at Fallow-field is admired by the sporting fraternity as one of the finest athletic arenas in the world. It has provided this country with some of its leading athletes. Now, because of financial difficulties, it is in danger of being taken over by greyhound racing interests.
I have often looked with admiration at the thousands of young men and women whose physical fitness arouses our best emotions, and yet we are now in danger of losing what facilities we have for providing for their recreation. It is time that the Ministry took steps to provide such facilities. Twice in my lifetime we have won a war. As a boy I toured the Continent after the First World War playing for an Army football team, and I was never better treated in my life. Yet Germany and Italy, who lost the last war, are now providing more encouragement for physical fitness than is provided in this country. Italy deducts £4 million annually for sport from the pools. We take £4 million out of sport. The Germans take £125,000 a week from the pools for the encouragement of sport, while we allow millionaires to be made out of pools and out of sport.
We ask that the Ministry should give urgent attention to this problem and that greater financial support should be provided. I wish to place on record my appreciation of the willingness of the Parliamentary Secretary to consult his officials and to take part in this short debate. At the same time, I would point out that all we have done is to take advantage of our Parliamentary rights in raising this issue which will give great satisfaction to our friends in the country.

9.21 p.m.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: In supporting what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), I want to try to relate this topic to the responsibilities of the Ministry of Education. I speak chiefly on behalf of those thousands of children for whom no playing fields are provided by the Ministry. My hon. Friend has already said that through the medium of television we have been able to see many outstanding sporting events of an international nature during the past few months.
I am sure that hon. Members, especially the men, will have been grieved time and again to see British teams outplayed by people from abroad. Not one athlete in the 1952 Olympic Games set up a record for this country. I have often sat in the Tea Room after a television broadcast and heard some of the men become as heated when discussing the games as they do about arguments and debates in this Chamber. Just like every audience at a football or cricket match, they think that they could have played the game in a much better way than those who were on the field.
The arguments always raise the same questions. Everyone agrees that we should have more concentrated training and that we should start earlier with our training. It is in that respect that I want to relate the matter to the Ministry of Education. It is no use isolated people breaking speed records unless we can follow up their performances by allowing more people to join in and to represent us in international events. It is from the children that we shall draw our future cricketers, footballers and atheletes to represent the country. Therefore, we must provide more facilities for them.
Since I came to this House I have repeatedly asked the Minister of Education to state when she intends to relax Circular 245 as it affects the question of playing fields. On every occasion she has replied, as she did last week and as I expect her to reply tomorrow, "Not yet." It is true, of course, that new schools have playing fields provided as they are built, and that is right. Last week I went to look at Kidbrooke. There is not merely a magnificent school building there; there are also magnificent playing fields.
If the policy of the Ministry that playing fields shall be provided only where new schools are built is to continue, it means that thousands of children will be condemned to spend their time in old schools with no provision at all for playing activities outside the schools. It is on behalf of those forgotten and neglected children that I wish to make a plea tonight.
Many of the old schools—we are told in the Report of the Select Committee that there are about 600 black-listed schools and that many of them may have to remain in use for 10 to 15 years—have been robbed even of their existing hard playgrounds because of the increasing child population. Horsa huts and other temporary buildings and improved lavatory accommodation have had to be build upon the restricted space where they have had their hard playgrounds.
I want to illustrate that by reference to my own constituency. Stoke-on-Trent is an area of close concentration of factories, homes and schools. The factories are next door to the school playgrounds. The children in the schools have smoke pouring into their classrooms from the factories producing the pottery which is so valuable to the country.
Besides that, Stoke-on-Trent has very little space left for the provision of playing fields. It has many marl holes and spoil heaps from collieries and factories, and in my constituency almost every bit of playing space has gone. What is left is nothing more nor less than spoil heaps, places on which shawds, the term used for broken pottery and glass, are put as rubbish.
Stoke-on-Trent compares very unfavourably with other local authorities in playing field facilities. With a child population of more than 22,000, Stoke-on-Trent has 13 acres of playing fields, including the grammar school and all, which represents 0·6 acres per 1,000 child population. Wolverhampton has 16,250 children and 180 acres of playing fields, representing 11·8 acres per 1,000 children. Smethwick, a very much smaller local authority, has 6,300 children and 23 acres of playing fields. Also, Stoke-on-Trent does not own one cinder track or other large playing space for athletic training.
My local education authority has estimated that if it was to implement the 1944 Act in respect of playing fields it


would need 441 acres, and yet at present it has only 13 acres. There is not a single playing field in my constituency with the exception of one girls' grammar school and one secondary modern school. I have proposed to the Minister of Education that we should at least be allowed to make a beginning on the space which we call the Trubshaw Cross area.
This could not be called agricultural land by any stretch of the imagination. It is tucked away in the middle of factories, in a very densely populated area. It has on it colliery heaps, and much rubbish from the potteries has been deposited there. But the land belongs to the local education authority and there is, therefore, no question of having to purchase. What has to be done is to level the ground and make it safe for the children by removing the shawds, glass and refuse. The teachers in that area have, by their own effort, cleared one small Part, which has now been made available to some of the children.
This site is surrounded by 13 schools, with a child population of 4,400 between the ages of 7 and 15. With one exception, all those schools are old. Four have been blacklisted for many years, but none is likely to be replaced in the near future. To the pleas which are made on behalf of these 4,400 children the Minister repeatedly turns a deaf ear and says, "We are very sorry for you. We should like to help you, but we cannot do anything yet."
In the debate on education which took place on Monday last the Minister said that the question of painting and other measures for bringing schools up to date was a matter for local authorities. She said that she has asked Her Majesty's Inspectors to report to her any school or place where they think this is not being done. When she made that statement she was not thinking of playing fields, because she has completely shut them out ever since she decided to make economies on behalf of the Government.
I have here a report which was made in relation to Park Road School, which is in a mainly residential area of Stoke. It is the best building of the 13 schools, and at one time only middle class children attended it. Her Majesty's Inspector says:

Facilities for organised games are inadequate The boys have only a small bare, sloping and uneven piece of land for football and a similar area for cricket. The school playgrounds are too small and slope too much for games and ball training. These conditions are thrown into relief by the absence of gymnasium, changing rooms, and showers in the school building.
Not one of those 13 schools, or many hundreds of other schools in the country, can ever hope to have a gymnasium or a shower.
Some of these 13 schools have very little playground space. Moorland Road, which is a girls' school with 1,067 pupils, has 0·6 acres of playing space. Middle-port, with less than 500 children, has 0·16 acres. High Street—a boys' school and a very good one—has 0·185 acres. I could go on giving figures for the rest of the 13 schools to show how little space there is, and how few facilities there are for training in athletics, football, cricket or netball. I was a teacher in one of those schools, and for years, when I wanted to give my class netball, I had to put dust upon a cinder tip in order to mark out the lines. If it was a windy day we had to imagine those lines.
The Minister may say she is not able to make a grant to cover the whole cost of making such playing fields as the one I have mentioned, but we ask her that she should at any rate see that we can make a beginning. If only we could make a beginning it would be an encouragement to the local authorities and to the teachers and to the children themselves, and it would encourage them themselves to do what they could to improve the facilities. My hon. Friend has already mentioned Eton and Harrow. It has been boasted many times that the history of this country was made on the playing fields of Eton. I am asking tonight that something should be done for the children who have no playing fields at all.
A fortnight ago we had the national athletic competitions at Ashington, and my own city for the first time brought back five firsts, and the two girls in my division who won a first were girls not in a secondary modern but in a grammar school where playing fields already exist. We in our city believe that we have a good football team in Port Vale. Port Vale and teams like that depend on the schools for future footballers. They


depend on the training that the schools are able to give.
One of the things in Monday's debate that caused me very great concern was the accusation made against some teachers. I thought it despicable that there were suggestions that some of our teachers did not measure up to the standards of those in the independent and public schools. There are hundreds and hundreds of teachers who give up every Saturday morning and many Saturday afternoons, and night after night, on behalf of their children in primary and secondary modern schools.

Mr. G. Thomas: And buy the equipment, too.

Mrs. Slater: Yes. Not content with spending all day in school they become the leaders and trainers of youth outside school hours in football and netball and athletics. Those teachers are making tremendous sacrifices for the children. Very often they give up their home life for the children. We are asking tonight that those teachers who make those sacrifices shall be given some encouragement from the answer to this debate.
The Prime Minister said not very long ago that it would be too bad if we could not do anything until we were able to do everything, and all that I am asking is that the Minister of Education should show a little human kindness, realise that she is responsible for not only the children in the new schools but for the hundreds of children who are condemned to spend their schooldays in bad schools, and from tonight make up her mind that she will relax some of the restrictions she imposed in Circular 245.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: I want in a few words to reinforce the plea put forward by my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) and Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). The speeches to which we have listened have reflected the experience of my hon. Friends in their constituencies. I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary is here and I express my appreciation of the fact that he has come to the House to listen to our plea this evening.
I want to refer to my own experience. Before corning to the House I was chairman of a Part III education committee

for seven and a half years. That committee controlled 11 elementary schools, a school population of 4,020 and a teaching staff of 109. During my chairmanship I tried to make some provision for organised games for, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, organised games are included in the school curriculum; but it is no use having organised games in the school curriculum unless we have playing fields on which children can play those organised games.
As one who had a vision of what the situation ought to be, I made up my mind that we could not fulfil the meaning of the curriculum unless we had playing fields, and I said, "We will have a drive for playing fields." In making that drive to secure playing fields for the schools our problem was that we were unable to find the land. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said, all around us were pit heaps and flashes. The moment we stepped on to good land we were told that we could not have it because it was required for agricultural purposes. I can understand the wisdom of that but the fact is that another Department—I must exempt the Parliamentary Secretary from this—failed to play its part in the restoration of that land and by its failure also prevented children from obtaining playing fields.
I want to support the claim by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South that land is available in close proximity to the schools provided that the Departments responsible for the restoration of that land join with the Ministry of Education and spend a few thousand pounds on the land in order that it may be levelled, drained, and have soil added. It will then become a playing field.
During my chairmanship three new schools were built and in embarking on the building of those new schools one of the essential points which we had to consider was that playing fields should be connected with them and that sufficient land should be bought not only for the buildings but also for the playing fields in order that the children could enjoy organised games. We have a playing field with the Moss Lane Council School, with the Hindley Green Council School—the village in which I lived—and the Argyle Street Council School, but for the other eight schools there is not an inch of land which the children can use for organised games.
On behalf of those children I join with my hon. Friends in asking the Minister of Education and the other Departments concerned to get to work to provide playing fields. We must see to it that land which has now been long derelict—and we have some derelict land in my area—is properly used. This is land which is crying out to be put to good use by any sensible statesmen. They would not find it necessary to take agricultural land for the purpose of playing fields if they went the right way about it.
I think it is true to say, when examining the development by great industrial concerns which has taken place over the last 25 years, that they realise the importance of physical fitness and therefore they have provided playing fields and recreation clubs for their employees. I admire the great industrialists—and I help them in every possible way, as I have done recently in my own district—who see the importance of the physical fitness which results from the facilities which they have provided for their employees. That physical fitness is reflected in the factories and in the workshops. If it is essential that physical fitness should play an important part in productivity—and it is, provided that we do not swing the pendulum to the other extreme—then it is equally essential that the children at school should have the opportunity of taking part in organised games.
There is a lesson to be drawn from this. Is it too late in the day to make champion runners, too late to make good footballers, too late to make good cricketers? What we want to do, in the words of an old Lancashire collier, is to "catch 'em young and train 'em in the direction they should go."
I have often said—and I hope I shall not be misunderstood—that there appears to be a strong line of demarcation between the non-industrial areas and the industrial areas. I am pleading for the same vision and the same drive to provide facilities for the boys and girls in the industrial areas as are given at Eton, Harrow, Winchester and other places. I admire the school authorities for providing those facilities. Every time I go near those places, I stand and admire what has been done. While I have admiration for what has been done, I ask myself the question: Why should they

enjoy all these facilities which are denied to the children of the industrial workers?
I say that it is essential that there should be a drive in this direction. I know that it means "brass." I am fond of using that word, which is a Lancashire word for money. I know that it means money, and I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that large expenditure on capital investment, etc., will not allow it. We are always getting that story. Almost every time we plead for some improvements for the industrial workers, we get the cry, "We cannot afford it." But we can afford it. I pay tribute to the great work which has been done by many of the voluntary organisations, which have been referred to by my hon. Friends, in raising money by voluntary efforts in order that the children may enjoy organised games in proper surroundings and with proper facilities.
I recall the battle which I had in 1925 and 1926 with the Department which the Parliamentary Secretary now represents. When I advocated shower baths at the school in my village, those in authority were up in arms against me and said that they could not afford it. That was at a time when practically 99 per cent. of the cottages in the village had no bathing facilities whatever. I fought the matter with the President of the Board of Education and finally the concession was yielded to me. People said to me that the children did not want baths, but after organised games on the playing fields they do need them. They want to enjoy the same facilities as are given to universities and colleges.
I plead with the Parliamentary Secretary to see that his Department does not try to cut these things down. After all, on whom do we depend for the future? It is to the children now passing through our hands that we must turn. They only pass this way once. It is our job to see that as they are passing this way proper facilities are given to them, so that they may enjoy the full fruits of organised games and fit themselves for the tasks which the nation will call upon them to do when they grow up.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: As a representative of the county of Staffordshire, I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and


my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater). We from North Staffordshire try to operate as a team in this House. We admire the teams in our constituencies and we try to emulate them.
We are proud of Port Vale because we realise the hazards and obstacles that that team had to overcome in comparison with some of the favourably placed clubs. We admire men like John Ikin, who comes from a small mining village in my constituency and has risen to the top rank of cricketing in this country. Therefore, those of us from North Staffordshire make no apology for raising the urgent question of providing the children, particularly in great industrial areas, with much better facilities for physical education.
The Ministry of Education should recognise that in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire it has two of the most progressive educational authorities in the country, two education authorities which since the war have been endeavouring with might and main to alter the situation over which they have control in order to provide genuinely equal opportunities for physical and mental education for the children of their areas.
But those education authorities have a terrible inheritance. The city which my two hon. Friends represent has less than 20 per cent. of grammar school places in proportion to the total secondary school places in what is a large industrial area. We have a terrible inheritance of old, archaic and dilapidated schools in which facilities are cribbed and constricted.
That is why we in Staffordshire have put forward to the Ministry projects for comprehensive schools, not because we believe in the comprehensive school as a shibboleth of Socialism, but because we believe it is the only solution to getting rid of the 11-plus examination and the selection tests and providing equal opportunities. But we consider that we have not had a fair deal from the Ministry of Education.
The Ministry of Education has refused to approve the Staffordshire development plan for providing better school facilities in this way, and we have had to fight every inch to provide these better educational opportunities. The moratorium

on educational building, which was one of the first steps of the present Government, meant the loss of 1,000 primary school places in the Staffordshire education plan of 1951–52.
Having said that, I want to say straightaway that I recognise one of the difficulties of the Ministry of Education in an area such as North Staffordshire in providing the additional space that is required if the children are to have, together with their school buildings, playing fields and space for physical recreation. I know that, because in my constituency we have trouble over every inch of ground that is required for housing purposes. That is because my constituency, like those of some of my hon. Friends, is subject to mining subsidence. So much of the land is sterilised and unusable for anything between five and 20 years because the mineral valuer says that subsidence is likely to occur through coalmining operations.
That makes much more difficult the building of houses and schools and the provision of space for all sorts of purposes. Large quantities of land are written off for the time being. The result is the attempt to encroach upon agricultural land, and I recognise straight away the agricultural case. Every inch of ground that can be preserved for food production is required, and we have got to be as economical as possible in the use of ground.
One of the results in constituencies like mine is that school buildings are much more expensive. Some of the schools have to be erected on rafts because they are built on land that is subject to mining subsidence, and to try to avoid the damage that mining subsidence may cause in future, one is compelled to resort to the method of building houses and schools upon these rafts, which is very expensive. That involves an additional burden on the local education authority, and also, of course, in the form of grants from the Ministry of Education.
That brings me to the point which has been emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown). Side by side with this situation, we have acres of land particularly in these great industrial areas and coalmining areas which are derelict. There is a lot of land in my constituency where small mining operations have been carried out. Sometimes


the land is left in a shocking condition, with its mounds, pit heaps, slag and devastation. Anybody who has travelled through Staffordshire in a train, particularly through the Black Country of South Staffordshire, will know that acres of land have been devastated by industrial operations. They are left derelict although we are up against a land shortage, and when we demand more land in order to provide homes for the people or better schools or playing fields for the children, we are told that there is a shortage of sites. This is because we will not provide the funds to reclaim these large areas of devastated land. There lies the solution of this problem.
If a complete survey were to be undertaken of all this derelict land, we would find that there is sufficient not only to provide for those things I have mentioned, but also to enable the Minister of Education to provide playing fields near the sites on which are built the older schools which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North said, suffer from constricted facilities.
This therefore, is no insoluble problem. The question is, who will take the initiative in reclaiming the derelict land; who will provide the funds so that the children of these industrial areas may have those open spaces which are easily available for children in areas that have not been devastated by large scale industrialisation? This must be done if they are to exercise the talents which they have already displayed in soccer clubs like that of Port Vale, and so contribute their talents to the sport of the country.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: My hon. Friends have rendered a service to the children of this country by raising this important question. I know they have raised it as a constituency matter and it so happens that I was in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) on Sunday last. I have never seen so much smoke in my life as I saw in Longton on Sunday, and my sympathy goes out to people who have to live in such conditions. Therefore, my hon. Friends are to be congratulated on having brought forward this question tonight.
I have got up to speak because the National Union of Teachers is profoundly interested and concerned in this question. The Parliamentary Secretary will know that the Minister has received deputation after deputation from the teaching profession asking for reconsideration of the matter of playing fields. The T.U.C. has joined with the teaching profession, and we find that the whole of the organised workers of Great Britain are making a request to the Ministry to change their priorities.
I believe that our priorities are wrong and that our emphasis is in the wrong place in modern society. We are trying to cure juvenile delinquents when they reach the courts and we might avoid delinquency if we provided more playing fields such as those for which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South asked, though I am not suggesting that the delinquency figures are any higher in his area—probably they are lower. It is the considered opinion of the teaching profession that in the overcrowded areas of this country the lack of playing space is one of the prime causes of juvenile delinquency.
I ask the Minister whether he can hold out any hope that Circular 245 is to be amended if it is not to be withdrawn. Surely we are not to go on for ever saying that we have no more money to spend on this provision. We are refusing expenditure on the physical training of our young people at a time when the numbers of young people in the schools are increasing rapidly. This is a matter of major concern and I am glad to support my hon. Friends.

10.7 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn): I am grateful to the hon. Members who have spoken for the tone in which the debate has been conducted and the reasonableness and moderation with which points have been put. Nobody will suppose that at this stage I am really going to come down like a fairy godmother in the last act and distribute what is wanted. The most useful thing that I can do is to make sure that everything that has been said today is fully understood and digested in the Department, and that I will do.
I was very grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) for his kind words to me. He will know that by no fault of anybody's I am 24 hours ahead of schedule and to speak from one's brief on this kind of thing 24 hours ahead is not always very easy. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will forgive me if on the details I appear to be less well informed than I hope I sometimes put up some kind of pretence of being. I am very sorry indeed that the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) should have been pushed back in the queue in order to enable us to come in today.

Mr. de Freitas: Since I have heard the debate, I have had no regrets whatsoever.

Mr. Pickthorn: Without appearing to do what would be even worse than reflect on the Chair, and that is compliment the Chair, it was nobody's fault and none of us was trying to get in the hon. Member's way.
If I can begin with some of the things about which I agree with most speakers, I should like to say that, like the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, I also have had a great deal to do with scientists, and especially with the best scientists. I quite agree with him that English scientists are better than other scientists, and I also agree that Englishmen are better than other men and a great deal better than other men, except the very best Scotsmen and Welshmen. I also agree with the hon. Member about the value of health, which indeed, after a tough conscience, is the most valuable thing in the world. I agree about the natural relation of sport and exercise to health.
I do not think that the hon. Member was quite fair in attributing complacency on this matter to my right hon. Friend or to Ministers in general, or in attributing to us the responsibility for having been beaten by the Hungarians. I have no doubt that if my right hon. Friend or I had taken a hand or placed a foot, the results would have been different, but in fact we were not invited.
I will try a little later on to indicate what seem to be the nature of our responsibilities. I think that the hon. Member perhaps drew them a bit wide. He quoted from the "Daily Express"

and I was almost tempted to quote from the "Daily Express," but I think that I will not.

Mr. de Freitas: It is gone.

Mr. Pickthorn: No, I have not lost it. It is here somewhere, but on the whole I will not, because I am quite certain that somebody would say that I said what it says, and I should hate to run that risk; but I invite the hon. Member to look at the "Daily Express" for 27th November, and after that he will find it a little difficult to quote it as an authority for his view in this matter.
We all know that the hon. Member, like me, has been an infantryman and we all know how the bayonet-fighting officer thinks that nothing matters except bayonet fighting. People whose special interest and business is physical training and especially ball games are a little apt, sometimes, to exaggerate the importance of ball games. I thought the hon. Member was guilty of some exaggeration when he seemed almost to think that it would be rather better if we had lost a couple of wars and won an international football match than the other way round.
The hon. Member spoke of "if Britain is to remain great and make the contribution our history deserves"—I suppose "our history" is a shorthand phrase for 600 years of Tory misrule—but I do not believe football is all that important. Fond as I was of playing it and as I am of watching it, I think it is possible to overdo it. I think it possible to overdo the argument that when Hotspur are in winning vein output goes up at St. Albans, because some other side—it might even be Port Vale—are in losing vein and output is going down there. On that argument I do not think it really worth while to have football matches at all: we might go on having output on the level, and let it go at that.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Call it a draw.

Mr. Pickthorn: The hon. Member will not think it part of my responsibility to try to get taxation reduced, nor would other hon. Members think it part of my responsibility to deal with subsidence—a problem with which I am also familiar from a constituency point of view. I do not think these are things I can do anything about.
More than one hon. Member spoke about extensions of the Acts and increased expenditure under them. I do not think it would be expected that I could answer on those things in any kind of detail, but I will try to indicate what seems to be essential about this matter. First, I hope no one will suppose that either my right hon. Friend or I am less concerned about children or less convinced that it is a good thing for children to take exercise—always, one hopes, under rather remote and tenuous guidance—in the open air. There is really nothing between the two sides of this House on those points.
Secondly, some hon. Members may remember Mr. Kipling's story about how World Government came—the setting up of an institution which was to look after communications, and how, since in fact we cannot do anything without communications, the Board of Communications very gradually became the super-Government and everything else, and so we got World Government. It has not happened that way yet, but the arguments of some hon. Members opposite were almost on that assumption—which I have heard even from the highest ecclesiastical authorities—that anything that makes any impression on the mind or body of the human being is educative and, therefore, is education. If we started using "education" in that way, the Minister of Education would become a sort of super Pooh-Bah, and there would be no need for any other Ministries at all, which in many ways would simplify administration. It seems to me, no doubt from a rather selfish point of view, that the number of debates in the last two or three days have rather tended to support that assumption.
What are the more or less direct and real responsibilities of the Ministry of Education in this business of fostering physical fitness? First, and much the most important, are the schools. I will make sure that the constituency points which have been put in the debate are looked at very carefully by those who are most administratively interested. I do not think that anyone who spoke from the other side of the House pretended that everything had been right about these things until about three years ago, and that everything had gone wrong since, so we need not stop to argue about faults of that sort. Also,

to a lesser extent—it is only because the population is less—the establishments for further education—these and the schools are first responsibilities; and in these what can be done by central direction will be done to see that games are properly organised, etc.
Incidentally I may say about the Battle of Waterloo, when "it was won on the playing fields of Eton"—[An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I agree with the hon. Member but he ought to have been in the House earlier—on the playing fields of Eton or wherever it was won, the point was that the games were wholly unorganised. The boys themselves made up their minds and did the whole thing—made up their own rules and all the rest of it. It is not a very good example to use in this argument on either side.
Even in this matter of physical education and games-playing, etc., in schools, my right hon. Friend is not solely responsible. These things are closely watched by local education authorities through their organisers and inspectors, and by Her Majesty's Inspectors. I think it is fair to say, and I have made it my business as much as I could, in a very short time, to cross-examine, that they are quite enthusiastic and quite determined to do their best about the matter.
Under Sections 41 and 53 of the Education Act, 1944, there is power to provide facilities for physical training and recreation—for instance playing fields, to give an obvious instance—where that is not appurtenant—I hope that is the correct legal term—or appendant to a particular school. That is a second responsibility.
Thirdly, my right hon. Friend, in her Ministerial capacity, does, in direct grants to national voluntary associations, support projects which are outside the concern of any particular area or even of L.E.A.s in general. She makes a substantial grant to the Central Council for Physical Recreation, which I think selects and directs the coaching of which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South spoke. For similar purposes she also makes direct grants to the Hockey Association, the Fencing Association and two or three other organisations.
These are the direct and specific responsibilities about which, with the indulgence of the House, it is necessary for me


to say something. All the rest is really past my competence, and even if I had briefed myself better than I have done it would not be appropriate for me to discuss it more than by way of reference or illustration. I very much welcomed what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said about the good work done by voluntary organisations in this connection. I hope he knows—I believe that what I am about to say is mutual—that the Ministers, officials in the Department and inspectors are on the best of terms with these associations and I think I may fairly say that esteem is mutual.
If he will forgive me for saying so, I cannot think him right—although almost always do think him right—in the importance he attaches, especially in relation to the Ministry for which I am speaking, to these great international events. In France, a country which I know well, there have in recent years been attempts, largely helped by André Gobert, whom some people may remember as a great lawn tennis player, and others, to organise games and open-air activities, camping and so on, largely on the English model. I do not know so much about Germany, but so far as I have been able to hear about them, and from what I have observed in France, I do not believe it is true, as was suggested—perhaps unintentionally—by several hon. Members, that this country is doing less than other countries in the encouragement of children and young people in some kind of outdoor activities or in learning to play some sort of game.
I do not believe that we should find it a good exchange if we did less of that and more of just producing two or three people who could beat the world in a particular sport. I remember some years ago André Gobert in a conversation with me said something which might be considered paradoxical by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but which he stuck to, despite the arguments of other experts who were present: it was then the time when the French were winning everything at Wimbledon, and he said the reason was because there were so few Frenchmen who played lawn tennis. In France, the moment a person was out of the kindergarten stage, he was invited to play with better players and was pushed on. So that anyone with more than average aptitude—certainly in the textile towns of the North-East and in Paris and Lyons

and one or two other large towns— went on and on. In England, on the contrary, a player might be good enough to get in his college six, but not into his university side. But he would be perfectly happy in that position because there would be thousands of other people at a similar level. I do not believe that anyone would think it a good thing to change that sort of goodness among a great number of people, in order to try to improve a few.
I am fortified in that belief by a sentence which I came across by chance and which was spoken a few years ago. It refers to the then Minister of Education,
His first objective, however, is the development to the full of each person's physical potentialities and not the fostering of success at competitive games. … I should have thought it was much more important to raise the general standard of physical culture and athletics than to cultivate specialism."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 2031.]
I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite agree with that sentiment expressed by their leader when he was Prime Minister and speaking in defence of the then Minister of Education. I do not think there is any party opinion about this. We all agree that it is the right line to take. Annoyed as we may be when we see headlines in the evening newspapers—"England ruined"—we must not allow our actions to be governed by that impulse.

Mr. Spencer Summers: May I remind my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Pickthorn: "Right" but not "honourable."

Mr. Summers: —that in the context of what he has just been saying, and despite the sentiments of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, an hon. Gentleman opposite did contrive to beat the chess world champion the other day.

Mr. Pickthorn: I agree. This would take me too far, although on the Motion we are discussing perhaps anything is in order: I could go on for a long time if my audience would stay. I throw it out by the way that most of the best and most important things in life are in fact by-products. This may well be one of the things where, if we give the maximum number of people a chance in this respect, we get a by-product of excellence, which is of much greater value than what we should get by aiming directly at the first level of excellence.
On the question of further organisation, these things can be over-organised. Anybody who has been at the Ministry of Education, however grateful and respectful he may be for all the advisory councils and all the rest of it that there are, must hesitate before being anxious to see any more organisations. In this connection we have the Central Council of Physical Recreation, which is a co-ordinating organisation representing something over 100 national bodies and which performs very great services to my right hon. Friend and to the nation. In particular, it is running courses at Lilleshall and Bisham Abbey. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) has left: I do not reproach him for that, but I hoped to get a cheer at this point by saying that a similar course is now to be run for Wales. I have forgotten exactly where.

Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) is not the only Welshman in the House. May I say on behalf of the Principality that I am delighted to hear that news?

Mr. Pickthorn: I hope that they will continue to be vociferous in the right direction.
Now I come to the difficult part—the part which everybody knows is always the difficult part of this argument. Reference has been made to the limitations on the development of playing fields in Circular 245. Generally people say "with every respect" when they are about to say something extremely disrespectful, just as when people begin by saying "frankly" they do not say what cads they are but what a cad you are; but with every respect to the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown)—and he knows quite well that it is with every respect—it will not quite do to say that I should not say "that we have not got the money," because we have heard that before. I am always very glad when I can debate with the hon. Gentleman because it is always a fair debate and I Always enjoy it. He has brought up children and if, the second time he said that to one of his children, he had been told that it would not do any longer because he had said it once before, he would have taken a very poor view indeed of that retort.
Leaving all partisanship out of it, we all know that we thought that we were in a great economic and financial fix three years ago. I suppose almost all of us know that we might think so again in three months' time, but I think that that is less and less likely, touching wood and so on. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not always remember, but at times of crisis their spokesmen admit—and I could make quotations if there were time—that we really cannot treat our internal expenditure and our external expenditure separately and suppose that they do not affect each other. Every time we spend anything on something internal, without getting a short-term increase in productivity out of it, we tend to diminish the value of all the shillings in everybody else's pockets. This used to be difficult economics which I did not understand when I was an undergraduate, but we all understand it now.
The fact is—and hon. Gentlemen opposite know it as well as my right hon. Friend does—that, at the time when the circular was issued, in one way or another economic expenditure would inevitably have been very much reduced, but if something had not been done, it would have been reduced by the continuing—and it would have been the quickening—process of the pound losing a pennyworth of value every month. All sorts of things had to be done, and this was one of the things that had to be done.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite may be quite certain that no Minister can be responsible for the Ministry of Education without being very anxious that as soon as that can be undone it should be undone, and very anxious also that if it cannot be undone, it should at any rate be allowed to be a rule with exceptions. As to drawing a line for the sake of argument—although I must not be taken to be admitting that Stoke-on-Trent is the most deserving place in the world—everybody would, of course, wish that things there should be improved as soon as it is possible to do so, with proper regard to other Departments and to overall national decisions.
Everybody will understand that I am necessarily under the limitation which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South elicited when he questioned the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 1st April, when he was told that there must be some consistency of policy in these matters and


that, in view of the continued need for economy in public expenditure, his right hon. Friend could not at present consider the proposals which the hon. Member was then suggesting, which were on the lines of those which he suggested tonight. Everybody will understand that I must necessarily be under that limitation.
As to what can be done about playing fields even within this limitation, there are a few things that I could say. There is a little more that I might say, but not very much more, for this debate was supposed to take an hour and we have been about two hours. One thing that I should say is that new schools are going up on the new housing estates, and it is the new schools that are getting the playing fields, and on the whole those are probably the places where it is most necessary to provide them. We are, so to speak, putting down new settlements in the wilds, and the provision of playing fields in such circumstances is a good thing so far as it goes.
If any places where there are difficulties are brought to our attention, we will certainly consider them in the most careful way, but there have sometimes been difficulties about getting land, even on new estates. Where co-operation between housing and education authorities is not perfect, we do our best to put that right, and we shall certainly continue to do our best to put it right.
I have a certain amount of technical stuff here about arranging how to make the best use of an acre and so on, but I imagine that hon. Gentlemen will feel that I have perhaps given as full an answer as in all the circumstances was possible. I hope we have had a useful debate, and I assure the House that every attention that can be paid to it—hon. Members will understand that I can give away nothing absolute—will be paid to it.

Mr. T. Brown: We appreciate the difficulty in which the hon. Gentleman is placed, but I should like to put a point to him. He referred to the new schools which are being built, and we all admire the Department for what it is doing in that direction, but can he and his Department do something for the old schools which were neglected many years ago? I know that they cannot do everything at once, but it would be foolish to do

nothing at all for those schools just because the Department cannot do everything.

Mr. Pickthorn: I think it is understood that as soon as it begins to become possible to get capital resources for doing something which is not providing schools where otherwise there would be no schools, what the hon. Gentleman suggests will become possible and will be considered with every favourable predisposition.

LEVEL CROSSINGS, LINCOLN

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: Over 20 years ago, as an undergraduate at Cambridge, it was my experience to listen to lectures given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education. I must say that I found his lectures, if more informative, never as interesting as I found his speech during the last quarter of an hour or 20 minutes tonight.

Mr. Pickthorn: It is a long-term action. It is the intellectual improvement communicated by my lectures that makes possible the hon. Gentleman's appreciation now.

Mr. de Freitas: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be equally successful in sowing the seed in the mind of the Minister of Education, so that she may be able to appreciate the importance of playing fields in schools. I spent a couple of years living in a boys' club in the East End of London, where I took the boys in various games and sports nearly every evening and every weekend, and where the question of excelling was not the point. What mattered was that it gave the boys real, healthy pleasure if they could get on to an ordinary playing field. It is of that that we should be thinking, rather than whether we should be able to beat the Hungarian football team.
The point I want to raise is more restricted; it is limited to my constituency. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to 600 years of—as be said hon. Members on this side of the House would say—"Tory misrule." I shall not go into that tonight, but I must point out


that for 700 years Members of Parliament have been coming here from Lincoln and complaining, as is their duty. I do not know what they complained about for the first 600 years, but I know that during the last 100 they have complained about the level crossings. It so happened that when railways were built there was a great deal of complaint about them. An hon. Member of the time—Colonel Sibthorpe, who represented Lincoln—was a great complainer. He complained about the danger public libraries would be. He complained about foreigners who came here for the 1851 Exhibition, and spoke of the danger they would be not only to the country as a whole but to the maidservants, daughters, silver and forks and knives of hon. Members. He took a poor view of everything which was reckoned at the time as progress; and especially he complained about railways.
He was caricatured in "Punch" in 1844, and shown attacking a railway engine with a lance, mounted like Don Quixote. He hated railways. It is recorded somewhere that he disliked railways like the Devil, until, in his last years, he compounded with the Devil and took a return ticket to Grantham. He disliked the railways so much that he refused to have any truck with them. But the railways came to Lincoln and laid their tracks right across the High Street. I do not know how true it is, but I have read that the City Council at the time was somewhat alarmed about it and sent its town clerk to interview the railway promoters. He was told that there would be only one or two trains a day, and he went home and told the council that there would be no trouble about it. So today, we have these level crossings, as so often happens, and everyone blames the town clerk and the Member of Parliament—of 100 years ago.
It is such a problem in Lincoln that the City Council has a special committee —the Level Crossings Committee. Anyone who has served on a corporation knows that there are certain committees in which the new boys or the very old boys are put because there is nothing much to do and it keeps them quiet and happy. But so important is this problem to the citizens of Lincoln that the Level Crossings Committee is presided over by the Leader of the Council—the most dis-

tinguished citizen of Lincoln, a man who was my opponent two Elections ago—Alderman Hill, the leader of the non-Labour majority on the City Council. At its last meeting it had two Labour aldermen on it; Alderman Snook, the leader of the Labour group, and Alderman Rayment. There was also a distinguished non-Labour councillor, Councillor Bell. Clearly, it is one of the most important committees of the Council.
What is the nature of the problem? The problem is this. Lincoln is divided into two halves. Half the city is on a hill, where are the cathedral and much of the residential area. In the olden days it was almost the only residential part. Down in the plain is the industrial area. The two halves are joined by two streets, but the High Street is the principal one and it is cut and cut again by the railway. The gates of the principal level crossing are closed for 3 hours 18 minutes in the 12 hours between 7.15 a.m. and 7.15 p.m.
That was the estimate after a survey two years ago. That is the highest figure —for Mondays. The Tuesday figure is 2 hours 40 minutes. That is the lowest daily figure. These figures are two years old and are today nearer 4 hours a day. Four hours a day the High Street of Lincoln, which joins the northern and southern parts of the city, is cut in this way. And, of course, not only is the amount of time the road is closed a source of inconvenience; so are the stopping and restarting of the vehicles.
Why must the problem be solved? We are an industrial city; the roads are part of the industrial conveyor belt; and this conveyor belt is broken every few minutes by the gates being closed. Lincoln is not only an industrial city, but is the capital of the second largest and most prosperous agricultural county in England. It stands a good chance of being the first permanent site of the Royal Show, because Lincoln is halfway between North and South and is a fine city in a great agricultural county. I think it still stands a chance of becoming the permanent seat of the Royal Show, but one of the things that counts against it is the level crossing problem.

Sir John Barlow: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us on what authority he makes that suggestion about the Royal Show?

Mr. de Freitas: I welcome discussion of it. I have seen some correspondence in the farming papers about it. [Interruption.] I confess that one of the letters was from me. I am throwing that out as a suggestion. I have heard it discussed and at Windsor recently I overheard some favourable comments on this proposal. I lose no opportunity of advertising Lincoln as a good site.
Lincoln is a touring centre: the cathedral, the Glory Hole, the Carholme, the Roman remains, attract coachloads of tourists from all over the world. But they have to spend much of their time looking at the oldest rolling stock in Britain and the trains which pass and repass across the main street of the city. Industry, agriculture and tourists are important but above all it is on behalf of the ordinary citizens of Lincoln I am pleading, the men and women who live and work there. Why, because of a mistake made 100 years ago, should their lives be made intolerable by this obstruction across the main artery of the city?
What is the solution? The first step is to see that the level crossing is operated in the most efficient way; that is to say, that the police are alert in moving the traffic on as soon as the gates are up, and that the railwaymen close the gates no longer than is necessary. I have investigated both those operations. I am satisfied that the police do everything they can. I am satisfied too that the railwaymen, on the whole, do everything they can.
Some of the problems are not realised by the ordinary citizen. He does not appreciate that the railwayman closing the gates must take account of a train or engine which is some way away. There may be a gap between two trains. A train cannot start or pull up as easily as an omnibus. Therefore, the gates might appear to be closed longer than is necessary.
But the major problem remains the need for the Ministry of Transport to get busy and attempt a solution. My complaint is of lack of interest in the Ministry. On 23rd February this year, during the passage of the British Transport Commission Bill, I intervened for a few minutes and drew the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the need for capital expenditure by the railways to relieve the level crossings at Lincoln. I did not expect an answer then because

I had not given notice of the point, but I have not even had any kind of communication subsequently from the Parliamentary Secretary.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): I have not left any letter from the hon. Member unanswered, have I?

Mr. de Freitas: No. That was a speech which I made, and I was followed by the hon. Gentleman. As he did not reply to me then I assumed that he would, as I did in both Departments I was in, go through the debate, find out what points were not covered, and write to say what had been done. I am not saying that the hon. Gentleman has left any letter of mine unanswered but I had expected a letter from him.
This letter, dated yesterday, from the Town Clerk of the City of Lincoln, shows how the Ministry have behaved.
My Council are anxious to get on with the erection of the bridge across the 'Durham Ox' level crossing.
That would alleviate the situation and do a great deal of good.
Application was made to the Ministry of Transport as far back as Jury, 1951, for the approval to the appointment of consulting engineers. This approval, with consent to the appointment of consulting architects, was received on 13th July, 1954.
That is, three years later. Three years delay.
My Council are now pressing forward with all the necessary preliminary work.
The Ministry of Transport has shown itself extremely reluctant to help in any way to solve this problem. At the time that the Ministry took over civil aviation, I protested in the House that it was in danger of making our great air corporations into branch lines of British Railways. My protest tonight is much more serious, because the Ministry appears to regard Lincoln as some village on Emmett's "Oyster Creek—Great Tottering" line. Lincoln is a proud and important city, and will not stand for that.

10.49 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): I have listened with the greatest interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) on the question of level


crossings in Lincoln. I am sorry that this problem has been outstanding for so long, but when the hon. Member rose to raise the matter tonight I thought that perhaps it would be to express appreciation of what the Ministry is now doing to meet the wishes of the ancient city which he represents. But it seems that the hon. Member is not wholly satisfied.

Mr. de Freitas: I am not at all satisfied.

Mr. Molson: Indeed the last few sentences of his speech indicated that he was in a critical mood.
Before the war, there was a plan for dealing with the general problem of level crossings in Lincoln. Lincoln is unfortunate in that it has three level crossings. Two of these are in the High Street and one is in Pelham Street. Before the war there was an ambitious scheme for a general by-pass around all the level crossings, and a grant had been promised in 1938; but, because of the outbreak of war, that promise had to be cancelled.
During the war the City Council gave further consideration to the questions of the level crossings. In 1946, they put forward proposals to my predecessor at that time, who was a Member of the hon. Gentleman's party. At once, agreement in principle was expressed by the Ministry of Transport to those proposals which were of a much more modest nature. Instead of the costly general by-pass scheme it was accepted that the two crossings in the High Street would have to remain for an indefinite period. The City Council has made no proposals for altering the level crossings to which the hon. Gentleman referred in the early part of his speech. The scheme which it has put forward deals with the level crossing in Pelham Street.

Mr. de Freitas: That may be literally correct, but by having a bridge the traffic could go through, and a good deal less inconvenience would be caused in the High Street.

Mr. Molson: Exactly; that was the point I was coming to. While it would not be geometrically correct to describe Pelham Street as being parallel to the High Street—by the help of connecting streets they meet at both ends—it is nearly parallel with it. Traffic through

the city from north or south can leave the direct route and pass along Pelham Street past the "Durham Ox" level crossing and on to the two great traffic roads leaving Lincoln for the north or north-east.
The proposal put forward in 1946 by the City Council, and accepted by my Socialist predecessor provided for a bridge to be built in Pelham Street. It was then accepted as being a reasonably practical measure which might be taken in the foreseeable future to deal with the problems which the hon. Gentleman has raised tonight. Both during the time of the Socialist Government, and in the 2½ years that this Government has been in office, there have been such limitations on financial and economic resources as to make it necessary for there to be something very much like an embargo on schemes of that kind. As a result of the new programme announced by my right hon. Friend on 8th December last year we have now been able to look forward to a time in the not too remote future when this bridge in Lincoln can be built.
Ever since 1946 the City Council has been asking for two things. It has been asking for the approval of the appointment of consulting engineers in order to make the plans and prepare the specifications for the building of this bridge, and it has also been asking for the announcement of a date when the work could be begun.
It was at the beginning of this present month that we were able to agree to the appointment of consulting engineers, and it was for that reason that I thought that, in contrast with what usually happens when hon. Members raise matters on the Consolidated Fund Bill, the hon. Member for Lincoln would have come here this evening to express his gratitude for the fact that after this long period we have been able to give our approval and agree that the time has now come for the consulting engineers to prepare plans in accordance with the proposals that were put forward in 1946 by the City Council.
I am sorry that I cannot say now exactly when the work can be begun, but we do recognise that this is a matter of great urgency, and we hope that it can be fitted into the new programme in the comparatively near future; but we have now at last been able to agree to the plans being drawn and the specifications


being prepared, and I hope, therefore, that both the hon. Gentleman and the ancient city that he represents will feel that after their patience during 100 years, a substantial step forward has now been taken.

LIMBLESS EX-SERVICE MEN

10.57 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: May I say at the outset of this short debate that I am almost disarmed by the generosity of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance who very kindly, at very short notice, has come to reply to the grievance that I wish to raise tonight.
Nevertheless, I want to protest against the failure of the Government to do anything for the disabled ex-Service men. It would be unfair, in this debate, to raise the general issue which I have raised before in the House, of the failure of the Government to do something in this year's Budget for the old-age pensioners, the persons living on fixed incomes, widows and ex-Service men. That has been dealt with recently and adequately in a debate on a Motion moved by the Opposition. I want to raise the specific grievance of the failure of the Government to raise the basic rate of pension for the disabled ex-Service men, and particularly the claim of the ageing limbless ex-Service men.
By ageing limbless I mean one who lost a leg or arm, or part of a leg or arm, or both, in the First World War. There are now alive about 23,000 of some 45,000 heroes who made that sacrifice in the war. If the general debate on pensions that we had the other day was a party debate, I want to make a non-party plea this evening, because some of us try to keep the question of ex-Service men a non-party one. During the last two years we have repeatedly pressed the claim of the limbless ex-Service man. There is an all-party committee of hon. Members interested in the disabled ex-Service men. This committee has met the Minister seven times, and I must say that on each occasion the Minister has been kindness itself, has listened very patiently, and we have received each time the same polite but unsatisfactory answer.
I am here tonight to say, on behalf of the all-party committee, and certainly on behalf of the disabled ex-Service men,

that fine words butter no parsnips, and that it is time the disabled soldier had some practical help. Not only have we met the Minister seven times, but we debated this issue in the House on 6th November, 1952, and on 8th February, 1954. Still nothing has happened. The British Limbless Ex-Service Mens' Association has repeatedly, courteously and reasonably pressed on the Minister of Pensions the claims I advance tonight. The general reply of the Minister on pensions matters in the recent debate was, "Wait for the quinquennial review."
Many of us believe that the pensioners should not have to wait—they need an increase now. The special reply of the Minister to the claims of the disabled ex-Service men was, "Wait for the report of the Rock Carling Committee." In case the Minister feels that I am not treating him fairly, I will quote from the letter which I have recently received from him in common with other Members of the All-Party Committee:
On existing medical advice I have no grounds for discriminating between the elderly limbless or badly wounded and other elderly and other seriously disabled pensioners.…I have stressed on a number of occasions the desirability of deferring a final conclusion on this question of the ageing pensioner until the results of the further investigations of the Rock Carling Committee are known. I sincerely hope that the report we are all waiting for will be available in the not too distant future and that it will be reassuring to the limbless and other badly wounded.
The Rock Carling Committee is a very important medical committee which is doing work not only of national, but of international importance. It is investigating whether a man who gave a limb in the war will pay more in ill-health as the years go on for the sacrifice that he made. The All-Party Committee, the Minister and every medical man is hoping and praying that the result of this scientific investigation will show that a person's heart and lungs are not affected because he has lost a limb and that there is no reason for limbless ex-Service men to fear old age in that way. But whatever the medical testimony may be, we still demand an extra allowance for the ageing limbless ex-Service man.
The case which we are putting repeatedly to the Minister is that the ordinary disabilities and discomforts and handicaps of old age become more grievous in the case of a person who has lost a limb. The men of the 1914–18


war could face the disability of being without a limb at first because they had the resilience of youth to carry them through the sort of sacrificial life they had to lead. As they become older that burden becomes more insistent, more onerous.
B.L.E.S.M.A. and the All-Party Committee have been asking the Government for two years to give a special comforts allowance to the limbless ex-Service men of the First World War to compensate for the increasing loss of amenities with increasing years. I had the privilege of attending the annual conference of B.L.E.S.M.A. a few weeks ago. There, I made what I hope we shall always make in the case of ex-Service men—a nonparty speech. The day has long passed when we want a party battle on the claims of ex-Service men.
At the conference there were men from two world wars, and limbless men from every part of the country. It was the most restrained conference that I have ever attended and the most dignified. There was no whining from the ex-Service men. If they groused, it was in the tone that they groused in former days when the officer came round and asked, "Any complaints?" It was good healthy British grousing. The most remarkable feature of the conference was that the limbless ex-Service men there made their most passionate pleas on behalf of other men who were too seriously disabled to be present.
That conference, I could not help feeling, had a sense of disappointment. It was disappointed because it felt that the claims for an increase in the basic rate expressed with moderate reasonableness and advocated for the last two years had been turned down by this House. I tried to explain the great gratitude this House always shows for our war heroes, but it was very difficult to persuade them that we do feel that gratitude when, time after time a simple and modest request is turned down. So, conference went on record as saying that the time had come for their claim for an amenity allowance should not be tied up with the Rock Carling Report, and it was resolved
That this Conference notes with profound regret the long delays in reaching a decision on the investigations carried out since July, 1950, by the Rock Carling Committee into the long-term effects of amputations on the lives of limbless war pensioners;

and it further protested, in a resolution, that
… the long delays on the part of the Ministry of Pensions in reaching a decision on B.L.E.S.M.A.'s claim for a special allowance for the aging limbless pensioners of the 1914–18 war, additional to the fixed assessments for amputations laid dawn in the 1919 Royal Warrant, to compensate for the added burden and discomfort of artificial limbs and consequential loss of amenities and activities of everyday life.
Since then, we have again seen the Minister and, for the seventh time, we had a refusal by the Minister to grant, not the broad increases in pensions for which this Government thinks that we must wait in order to have the scientific information from the quinquennial review, but something specific and immediate which could be done within the Royal Warrant. That is a narrow, modest claim, affecting a group of aging heroes of the first world war, whose number is decreasing year by year.
I have intervened in the debate tonight in order to make a protest against the action of the Minister in not giving our case the answer which it so much deserves, and I ask that it be once more considered.

11.8 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Brigadier J. G. Smyth): I am always grateful to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) for the very great interest which he takes in the subject of war disability pensions. I have been very grateful to him on a number of occasions for keeping this whole question on a non-party basis which, I am sure, is the desire of the whole House. The hon. Member was kind enough to say that he had given me only a few minutes' notice of his intention to raise the issue tonight, and, therefore, I hope that he will forgive me if I stand here with no prepared brief. But this is a subject which we have discussed at length together, and I know the Minister's views fairly adequately on all the points which have been raised.
As regards the report of the B.L.E.S.M.A. conference, I have read every word of it. It was an excellent conference, and I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kindly references to my Ministry. But, at the same time, I thought his opening remark a little unfair.


He said he wanted to call attention to the failure of this Government to do anything for the war disabled ex-Service men. I do not think he really meant that. I do not think any other Government have done more for the war disabled than this Government, although I do not want to make a party point of it.
In 1952, in a particularly difficult economic period, we did give the biggest ever rise in war pensions and my right hon. Friend told the House the other day that he proposes to do something more within the lifetime of this Parliament and guaranteed that the war disabled would have first priority in any pension rises that were made. I think that what the hon. Member wanted to call attention to particularly was not the general question, but the particular problem of the ageing limbless pensioner.
This is not a new problem; it was considered by our predecessors and we have taken on where they left off. In 1946–47, the Hancock Committee considered this question at great length and members of the T.U.C., B.L.E.S.M.A., the British Legion and all the ex-Service associations reported to that Committee. The question that the Hancock Committee considered was whether any increased pension was necessary to compensate for age. That was one of the particular points it considered and it came to the definite conclusion that it was not and that the criterion that the pension should be given for loss of amenities comparing a disabled with a fit man of the same age should continue to hold good. But, as a result of that Committee, a large number of increases in pensions were given.
In the Ministry we are always ready to consider any particular case where anything has gone wrong with a man's stump, where there is shrinkage of the stump or anything of that sort, which necessitates additional assessment to the ordinary pension being given. In 1950, the Rock Carling Committee was set up. Its terms of reference were to consider whether the amputee was more prone to cardio-vascular disorders than any other section of the community and whether the amputee, as a result of the amputation and wearing an artificial limb, might have a shorter expectation of life.
That Committee issued an interim Report in 1951 and its final Report in 1953. Having given its final Report, it asked for a clinical examination of 5,000 amputees to confirm the first impressions gained simply from the perusal of a whole lot of medical records. Those clinical examinations were completed in March this year and my right hon. Friend hopes that the Rock Carling Committee will be ready to submit that report within a few months. He also hopes that it will not show that the amputee must expect a lessened expectation of life or be more prone to cardiovascular disorders.
I am sure that the hon. Member, who has the war disabled so much at heart, would agree because if that were found to be the case it would bring distress not only to many in this country but all over the world. If the Rock Carling Committee reports to the contrary, we shall have to make a comprehensive review of pension rates for all forms of amputations, and I can guarantee to the hon. Gentleman that we will undertake that.

Dr. King: Does that mean that if the Rock Carling Committee reports as we hope it will, that there is no cardiovascular deterioration because of lack of a limb, the Government will not give any consideration to B.L.E.S.M.A,'s amenity claim?

Brigadier Smyth: What I said was that if the Rock Carling Committee reports that the amputee is more prone to cardio-vascular disorders than other sections of the community, obviously the Government will have to review all their assessments on amputations, and I guarantee that we will do that.
Finally, I should like to remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Minister is responsible for all the war disabled—for the blind, the paraplegics and all the other classes of war disabled —and we cannot just consider one class in isolation. That would be considered by other ex-Service associations and by the war disabled themselves as unfair discrimination. Hon. Members can think of many examples. I heard the other day from a friend of mine who was shot through the stomach in the Ypres Salient 30 years ago; he does not feel so good as the years go by, and he has no artificial limb to show for it.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend has the cause of the ageing limbless very much in mind. He has guaranteed to make a review of pensions in the near future, and all the points that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned will. I assure him, be most carefully considered.

Dr. King: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take it from me that the limbless ex-Service men do not say that only limbless may suffer in the course of old age and that they would not want their claim to jeopardise any other claims? The claims are more general than that. At the same time, they would not want the Minister not to help the ageing limbless ex-Service men because he was afraid that he would have to help some other ageing veterans with other handicaps.

Brigadier Smyth: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's assurance, but the case as generally put to us is for the ageing amputee. I thought that that was the B.L.E.S.M.A. case which the hon. Gentleman was putting to me, but I feel that the other case which he has now mentioned, with wider implications, is probably a better one.

PRISON, GRENDON UNDERWOOD

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Spencer Summers: I am very grateful for this opportunity of raising a matter which is not only of very great importance to many of my constituents and the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham), but is also of considerable urgency. I do not think it will be necessary for me to detain the House very long, and that, in the light of some noises off which I detected a few moments ago, may provide some comfort to hon. Gentlemen.
There is one matter which I must mention before I come to the main argument that I want to advance by way of protest against the decision of the Home Secretary to proceed, despite objections lodged at a public inquiry, with the erection of a large walled prison in a rural part of Buckinghamshire for non-certifiable psychiatric prisoners.
Owing to the change in the time-table, it has not been found possible for the

Minister to be available; nor, indeed, would there have been very much time for him to go into it in any detail. I hope that when he has had an opportunity of studying what I have to say he will put in writing the views of the Department on the matter. I assure him that the same local publicity which may be given to anything that I may say will be given to anything that he may convey to me in writing.
It is no part of my purpose to reiterate at any length the arguments which were advanced at the public inquiry as to why it was objectionable for the Prison Commissioners to choose the particular site known as Grendon Underwood to erect this walled prison. I shall content myself with saying that the objections were unanimous, and came from the county council, the rural district council and every other local organisation, and many individuals. Stress was laid upon the destruction of the rural character of the area; on the effect upon the recruiting of farm labour and the deterioration in the value of the land, and attention was drawn to the fact that many comparable establishments already existed there, and the general effect upon the neighbourhood was also mentioned.
I want to stress the historical fact that a year ago, on virtually the same site, the Prison Commissioners sought to erect an open prison. Local opinion was then divided. The plan was supported by the county council, and the Prison Commissioners finally went on without a public inquiry. At the time considerable local feeling was aroused. In the interval, the people living in the area have become reassured that their fears were misplaced; they have learnt to live alongside the open prison with great good will. It is, therefore, with special regret that they view the proposed advent of a walled prison which will destroy the good will so recently built up.
In a letter dated 1st July, which I have here, the Minister gave the reasons why, despite the objections lodged, he felt it necessary—together with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government—to authorise the Prison Commissioners to go on with the plan. In effect, the Minister gave three reasons for that decision. First, he said there would be local opposition wherever the


prison was sited, and that his experience showed that it was generally grossly exaggerated. It seems rather futile to go through the motions of holding a public inquiry—when opportunities for local objections are given—if the response to those objections is, "We knew that was coming. Wherever we made this proposal the same objections would be raised."
Secondly, it was contended that the local population ought not to mind, because the lie of the land was such that the new buildings would be able to be seen only from one direction, so that very few people would notice that the prison was there. To rely upon what one can see as the test of the extent to which a proposal is objectionable is completely to miss the point of the feeling in the district that this area will be completely changed by the advent of a large, walled prison of this character, with a staff of about 300, the local conditions of security being what they are.
Thirdly—and this is the reason I want to stress—it was contended that the site was so eminently suitable that the objections would be overruled. Local opinion has been tested at the public inquiry, and in my intervention tonight I want to ask the Minister to subject the Prison Commissioners' proposals to the same kind of scrutiny as he gave to the objections of local people at the public inquiry.
I consider that they are not justified in their attitude. First, it is contended that they have searched elsewhere and that no alternative site has been found. I am informed that those searches have been to specifications which include a large mansion only a site with a suitable mansion on it could be eligible, I understand. I contend that that is a set of provisions far too restricted. Secondly, it was said that the site must be within 60 miles of London, and the reason why it must be within 60 miles of London was that it might be sufficiently near to London that consultants could go there when required.
I should prefer that the needs of the public in the district should be considered ahead of the needs of the prisoners or of the consultants who may have to go there. If their visits are so regular let the persons dealing with that work be resident in the place. If they visit the place seldom what difference does it make if they motor there from London in two hours or three? It seems

to me that it is for Departmental convenience only that the place must be within 60 miles of London. I suggest that far more attention should be paid to the impact of such a proposed plan upon the public and far less to Departmental convenience, and still less to the welfare of the prisoners themselves.
It is from that point of view I want the Secretary of State to look into this matter. At the moment, far too much attention is paid to what the Prison Commissioners regard as the only way they can develop an additional prison. This seems to me to be another case, such as we have heard of in other contexts, of disregard of the rights of the local people. Insufficient attention is paid to them in the carrying out of this business. So I ask the Home Secretary to look at this again, to apply a fresh test apart from that he applied when he rejected the objections at the local inquiry and to challenge the premise on which the decision is based. If he will do that, then there is some chance that common sense and sound views may yet prevail, rather than bad planning and Departmental convenience.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) has made out a powerful case why the Secretary of State should reconsider the siting of this prison. I represent a constituency that is geographically some distance from this village, but which shares in an even more acute form than my hon. Friend's constituency the peril of being overflowed into from the Metropolitan area. I am very glad to see present on the Government Front Bench six Ministers. That shows with what importance this matter is regarded. I am very happy to see the Treasury so powerfully represented. And there are four Members present on the Opposition benches.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: It is quality, not quantity, that counts.

Mr. Bell: If it is quality that counts I am sorry to see that the Opposition Front Bench is empty. It shows how little regard the leaders of the Labour Party have for rural amenities. However, this is a matter that looms large in the minds of the people directly concerned. It is not a small thing when


in a little village, an overpowering development of this kind is undertaken. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, there has been no lack of broad vision on the part of the local people in balancing national and local considerations. Not only has the prison without walls, which is already there, been accepted without demur, but it has been given a positive welcome. Now, it is suggested that this further substantial development of the same category should be imposed upon this neighbourhood. It can only mean that a small rural community will be almost overwhelmed by the exaggeration of development which is involved in this proposal.
I am told also that 75 acres of good agricultural land will be sacrificed if this development takes place. It is known, of course, that the Vale of Aylesbury contains some of the finest agricultural land in the country. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, whom I see present, will intervene later upon this aspect. I hope that the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury will ensure that no public funds are available for a project so damaging in its implications.
I only hope that the questions which my hon. Friend has put forward will reach the eyes of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, in whose direct control this matter lies, and that he will reconsider the very weighty objections put forward, not only by the village community in their natural anxieties, but also by the Buckinghamshire County Council, which certainly has not taken a parochial view of this matter since it welcomed the open prison and has objected only upon closely argued considerations to the building of the walled prison which is now to follow unless some Ministerial intervention prevents it.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: There is much in what the hon. Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) and Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) have said to which I could object, but the occupants of the benches opposite look so tired and weary that it would be in the best interests of the House if they were now allowed to go home.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee tomorrow.

SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

11.32 p.m.

Clause 1.—(LICENSING OF PREMISES FOR SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS.)

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 1, line 27, at end, insert:
or
(b) paragraph 2 of the First Schedule to the Slaughterhouses Act, 1954 (under which a slaughterhouse licence is, in the case of certain classes of premises, to be granted as of right subject to the application for the licence being made before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-five).

In page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
(4) In the application of this section to Scot-land—

(a) in subsections (1) and (2), for any reference to a licence granted under section fifty-seven of the Food and Drugs Act. 1938, in so far as that section relates to the licensing of slaughterhouses, there shall he substituted a reference to a registration under section nine of the Slaughterhouses Act, 1954 (which provides for registration in respect of slaughterhouses), and in so far as the said section fifty-seven relates to the licensing of knackers' yards there shall be substituted a reference to a licence under section thirty-three of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897 (which provides for the licensing of knackers' yards);
(b) in subsection (3), for any reference to section fifty-seven of the said Act of 1938 there shall be substituted a reference to section thirty-three of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897; and
(c) where a local authority refuse to grant a registration in respect of premises under section nine of the Slaughterhouses Act, 1954, expressly authorising the use of the premises in question for or in connection with the slaughter of horses, any such refusal shall, for the purposes of subsection (8) of section ten of the said Act (which allows to a person aggrieved by a decision of a local authority under that section an appeal to the Secretary of State) be treated as a refusal of registration under the said section.

Clause 5.—(PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN OFFENCES.)

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 5, line 8, leave out from "1928" to "for" in line 14.

In line 17, at end insert:
and (b) for subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
(3) Where a person convicted of an offence in respect of any such contravention as aforesaid or of an offence against regulations made under section two of this Act is registered in respect of premises under section nine of the Slaughterhouses Act, 1954, or is the holder of a licence granted under section thirty-three of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, the court may, where such registration or licence relates to premises where the offence was committed, in addition to any other penalty, cancel the registration or the licence, as the case may be.

Clause 9.—(INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 6, line 16, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert:

(2) This Act, except as it applies to Scotland, and except so far as it amends the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, shall be construed as one with the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933.

(3) This Act, as it applies to Scotland and except so far as it amends the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, and the Slaughterhouses Act, 1954, shall be construed as one with the Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Acts, 1928 to 1953.

Second Schedule.—(AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS.)

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 8, leave out lines 26 to 33.

In page 11, line 22, column 3, leave out lines 22 to 25.

CRYSTAL PALACE—NUNHEAD RAILWAY (CLOSING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wills.]

11.35 p.m.

Mr. Henry Price: In about six or seven weeks, unless something unforeseen occurs, the branch line from Crystal Palace to Nunhead, which serves my constituency, will be closed. Objections have been lodged to the proposals. They were heard by the appropriate body, the Transport Users Consultative Council for London, and turned down. They have been reviewed by the Central Consultative Council, and, according to my latest information, have again been turned down.
I first raised the matter with the Minister of Transport at the end of May, and had a reply dated 10th June. In that letter he said:
In my experience, the examination of proposals by the consultative committees is very thorough and well balanced and these committees serve a most useful forum for the consideration of the views of the local user interests before any decision is confirmed to withdraw a service.
In support of that contention the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that the Transport Commission had had proposals to withdraw passenger services on 118 branch lines involving the closure of 272 railway stations. He quotes two examples of the Consultative Committee rejecting proposals of the Commission as evidence of the usefulness of the Committee. He will forgive me if I find it difficult to accept two rejections out of 118 proposals as being convincing evidence of the usefulness of this body. I am severely critical of the proposal in which I am particularly interested, first, because of the proposal itself and secondly, because of the procedure adopted, and which I imagine is typical, for dealing with it.
The history of this particular case makes nonsense of that procedure, demonstrates it as farcial and, in my view, shows that it is merely a façade to impress the gullible that the interests of the consumers are protected. The interests of the consumers have no chance whatever. When the railways were nationalised one of the arguments strenuously advanced in favour of it was that the element of profitability would be removed and the most important principle would be that of service to the public. It is clear that in the case of the Crystal Palace to Nun-head branch line the reverse has been adopted. It is the element of profitability that matters and the element of public service has been ignored. According to the case prepared by the Commission, and with which I cannot quarrel, a net annual saving of £65,000 would result from closing the line, the net annual receipts for which were £14,000.
Neither I nor anybody who knows the line is at all surprised at those figures, since there has been no attempt since the war to make this line a commercial proposition. On the contrary, all the evidence appears to prove that there has been a deliberate attempt on the part of those responsible to depress the value of this line, and to make it as unattractive


as possible to the public. I have in my possession, and will make them available to the Minister, photographs of two of the stations involved. One, the Crystal Palace High Level Station is in the same condition as it was after the war, with a glass roof open to the elements, and showing many other signs of dereliction. The station is typical of the line in that it has been allowed almost to rot.
No attempt has been made to advertise facilities which this line offers. Perhaps I ought to apologise for a slight exaggeration there. There is one advertisement. Outside one station there is a notice in, I think, these words, "This station is closed on Sundays." As far as I have been able to discover, that is the only advertisement on any of these stations.
Indeed, this is not denied by those who represented the railway at the hearing before the Transport Users' Consultative Committee. Mr. Walter, who represented the Branch Lines Committee, Southern Region, British Railways, said that
it had never been the practice of the railways to advertise in the ways suggested by Mr. Eames. In fact, the cost of advertising regular train services throughout the country had been prohibitive. There were always time-tables available, and information as to excursions, etc. could be obtained from leaflets at the stations.
Here is a gentleman who obviously does not believe that advertising pays.
In private life, I am a paper merchant, and the parallel position would be that I should stay in my office and make no attempt to advise potential customers that I have paper to offer, and adopt the attitude that if they want paper let them come to me and find out what I have got. I know what would happen to my business or, indeed, to any business which followed such a policy. It is hardly surprising that an unhappy fate has befallen this branch line financially.
I suggest that the policy which should be followed, at any rate in London, with its very pressing and special traffic problems, should not be the policy which has been followed here, which is, "The line does not pay; let us close it," but, "This line is not fully used; let us see what we can do to popularise it and thus relieve the load on the overburdened road transport system of London."
Especially should that be so where, as in this case, there is substantial housing

development being carried out by the borough council and the county council, which will have the effect of increasing very substantially the number of potential customers for this railway within within the next year or two. But instead, this is the time, when this development is taking place, that the line is to be closed, thus thrusting on to the already overburdened road transport system not only those who use the line at present but those who, when they move into the new housing development, would use the line if it was still there. The road transport system is already strained to the utmost and is now to be subjected to this additional burden.
May I also draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that the additional road service to be provided is by the extension of the No. 63 bus route from its present terminus along a road known as Wood Vale, up Sydenham Hill and along the top of Sydenham Hill to Crystal Palace. I do not know whether the residents of Wood Vale and Sydenham Hill have been consulted in this matter, and whether they are pleased or otherwise at the prospect, but I do know that everybody who lives locally realises two things —first, that the turning out of Wood Vale into London Road is extremely awkward and dangerous even for a private motor car, and, secondly, that the first part of Sydenham Hill is very steep, and at the top it is narrow and tortuous.
I very much hope that it is never my fate to be in a heavily laden 63 bus turning that corner and descending that hill under unsatisfactory conditions. It is to the credit of the police and the local authorities that they have both objected very strongly to this suggestion. Yet it is the suggestion which the Transport Commission have advanced as a supplementation of the existing road services in order to cater for the traffic which will be turned away from this railway when it is closed.
It would be possible for me to go into greater detail on the merits or demerits of the proposals, but I wish to criticise the procedure which seems to be of wider significance and greater importance. I would suggest that in London it is wrong for such proposals to be considered in isolation. I suggest that their consideration should be subject to their being in accordance with an overall policy for


London. I have already indicated What I think that policy should be, namely, to popularise the use of branch lines to relieve the load on road transport and not the reverse. The Transport Users' Consultative Committee were unable to consider this aspect of the matter because they were not advised of the capacity of the roads to take the additional traffic. Surely that is a point which they should have before them.
My third criticism is perhaps a personal one, though I am not criticising the gentleman in question. The Consultative Committee is dominated by its secretary, who is a very able man with a very powerful personality. He has a long history of close association with railway management. How is it possible for such a man to be objective in his consideration of the proposals lodged by transport users? It is inevitable that, with the best will in the world, he will have a bias. I shall be interested to know, if the Minister can tell me, who appoints the secretary and who is responsible for his salary. To whom does this man owe his loyalty?
My next criticism is of the particular Consultative Committee. Long before the inquiry was completed more than half of the members of the Committee had left. By whom was the decision to overrule the objections taken? Was it by the whole of the Committee before the inquiry was finished, or by the few who were left at the end? When the deputation had finished presenting their case they were asked to withdraw, but the representatives of British Railways and London Transport were allowed to remain. Surely that is a peculiar way of giving unbiased and objective consideration, as they should have done to this case. I understand that the Committee are there to protect the transport users, but one might be forgiven for imagining that in this case they were there to serve the interests of British Railways and London Transport.
My next criticism is, in my view, the most serious of all. The Transport Users' Consultative Committee were clearly told by the secretary to whom I have already referred and by Mr. Walter, to whom I have referred once before, that the local authorities had been consulted and did not object. In fairness to Mr. Walter,

who was not so categorical, I think I should quote from his words. He said that
the interested local authorities had been consulted, but, as the correspondence disclosed"—
I draw particular attention to those words—
whilst they regretted the possibility of losing the rail facilities, they appreciated the uneconomic condition of the line and did not wish to take part in these proceedings.
The correspondence referred to consisted of letters from the boroughs of Camberwell and Lewisham and the Urban District Council of Penge, of which I have copies. I do not propose to read them all, but I will gladly make them available to the Minister.
I would, however, like to read what I consider is the most significant paragraph in each. First, from Camberwell Borough Council, which, in a letter signed by the Town Clerk, states:
My Council feel, therefore, that they are justified in protesting most strongly at the manner in which this matter has been dealt with as, in the circumstances, it is obviously impossible for their observations to have been properly considered.
From the Town Clerk of Lewisham Borough Council, there is a part of the letter which states:
I am now directed to inform you that this Council views the proposal with disfavour particularly in view of the already inadequate travelling facilities in the Forest Hill district.
The views of the Urban District Council of Penge may be summarised from the conclusion to a letter signed by their Clerk:
The Council respectfully submit that with all the development proposals in hand for housing, sports grounds, cultural amenities, and the like, coupled with existing uses and the need of travellers for a direct service to the City, every effort should be made to keep the branch open for the benefit of the general public.
That is the correspondence referred to by Mr. Walter and the secretary.
I submit that the T.U.C.C. was misled by Mr. Walter and by its secretary; and I think that I should take this opportunity of lodging the strongest possible protest about the behaviour of these two gentlemen, and to say that to have misled the Committee in the manner in which it was misled is extremely reprehensible.
My last criticism is this. The T.U.C.C. rejected the objections, and the matter has


since been reviewed by the Central Transport Consultative Committee; who confirmed the decision, but it is not difficult to understand this result, since the secretary of the Central Transport Consultative Committee is one and the same gentleman as the secretary of the T.U.C.C. I do not see how it is possible to condone a position where an appeal against a decision by a body which is dominated by its secretary, as is the T.U.C.C., should be heard by another body which is probably dominated by the same gentleman. Surely, anyone must admit that it would seem impossible to expect an unbiased and objective opinion, and this is, I think, an argument worthy of the most serious consideration.
My concluding remarks must be that I hope that the evidence which I have put to the House, and which I can substantiate with the documents I have here, will satisfy the Minister that this inquiry was not based on all the evidence available; that the Committee was misled and that, if it had been properly advised, it might well have come to another decision; and that the policy underlying this closure of branch lines needs most serious consideration at the highest possible level. I suggest that these matters should not be considered as individual matters, but as part of a policy for London transport and I hope that the Minister, who has been very generous in his treatment of me so far, will be able to give me satisfactory assurances along those lines.

11.55 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): In replying to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. H. Price) I must make it quite plain that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has no responsibility in this matter. A procedure has been laid down in the nationalisation Act which is well-established and, I think, is working satisfactorily.
The only circumstances in which the Minister is authorised to intervene in the day-to-day administration of the railways is if the Transport Users Consultative Committee dissent from some action which has been taken by the Transport Commission. We consider that the closing down of branch lines is a matter

of the day to day administration for which the British Transport Commission is responsible. In every case—and there have been very few—where the proposals of the Commission have been criticised by the Transport Users Consultative Committee the Commission has deferred to its view.
We think it is useful and proper that the Transport Commission and the London Transport Executive should both be represented on the London Committee and should participate in it. I quite follow the argument of my hon. Friend who suggested that these committees should be completely independent and aloof. They have certainly shown themselves to be extremely independent in the scrutiny to which they subject the proposals of the British Transport Commission, but it is of the utmost importance that these committees should be informed by the experience of the Commission and they should work cordially together. We therefore take the view that it is greatly to the advantage of the Consultative Committee that it should contain representatives of the Transport Commission and, in the case of the London Transport Users Consultative Committee, that it should contain representatives of the London Transport Executive.
I was sorry that my hon. Friend spoke in the way he did of the secretary of these two committees. That gentleman is responsible to the Committees he serves. I have every reason to believe that he enjoys their confidence. It really is no reflection on him, but it is a very serious and quite unjustified reflection upon these two Committees, consisting, as they do, of public men, to suggest that they are dominated by their secretary. I can think of nothing more wounding to any body than to suggest that it has not a mind of its own but is dominated by its secretary.
This gentleman has had a distinguished career in transport. He was secretary of the Railway Clearing House, he has legal training, he is the only one of the secretaries who has a whole-time appointment and, I understand, he has been of the greatest value to both the Committees he serves. To suggest that men prominent in industry, in the trade union movement, in the Co-operative movement, men selected by my hon. Friend as representative of the transport users in general,


are going to be dominated by their secretariat, is both unwarranted and offensive to them. It is much more a criticism of them than of their secretary.
My hon. Friend has suggested that London should be granted more favourable treatment than other parts of the country in the matter of closing down branch lines. I think there would be a strong case for suggesting that London should be accorded less favourable treatment than other parts of the country. I am much more influenced when it is the representative of some rural area where there is very little in the way of transport who complains that it is proposed to close down an old-established line.
In the case of these unremunerative lines in London where there are so many other forms of transport, it is those residents of London who have not used the lines while they were available who are to blame if they now find that they are being closed down. I would remind my hon. Friend when he talks about profitability that one of the principles of the nationalisation Act was that the British Transport Commission is expected to ensure that, taking one year with another, it covers its expenses, and it is the view of my right hon. Friend that one of the essential methods of efficient and up-to-date administration is to close down lines which are no longer remunerative.
It has been suggested that the Transport Commission neglects branch lines. The Commission assures us that it does what it can to make these branch lines remunerative. Certainly, I can think of no reason why it should act otherwise in view of the fact that there is a substantial sum of capital sunk in them.
Generally speaking, therefore, although my right hon. Friend has no responsibility in this matter, we take the view that the machinery is working satisfactorily and that the Transport Commission is acting wisely and prudently in making

proposals to the Transport Users' Consultative Committees for the closing down of lines which are unremunerative.
This matter was considered by the London Transport Users' Consultative Committee on 10th June, 1954. At that inquiry the case was put for those users of the railway who opposed the closing down of the line. My hon. Friend wrote to the Committee and was associated with the deputation of users which attended, but did not himself go. The protesters thought that with more publicity, lower fares and diesel trains, the line might be set on its feet, but the Consultative Committee, having heard their arguments, came to the conclusion that the closing of the line was justified.
It is expected that that will make a minimum saving of £65,000 a year. After the closure of the unremunerative line, it is intended that additional trains shall be run on the Catford loop line where housing developments have led to the need for additional services at peak periods. That will be introduced as soon as the branch line closes. The local authorities affected regretted the proposal to close the line, but considered that the economic case for its closing was overwhelming; and the figures which have been produced all tend to show that. It has been estimated that in a representative week the maximum number of passengers recorded in any one train on any portion of the branch was 152, whereas most trains made up of four coaches have seats for 386 passengers.
For these reasons, it seems to me that the Consultative Committee could scarcely have arrived at any other conclusion than it did, and, therefore, in my view, there is no justification for the protest that my hon. Friend has made against the closing of the line.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes past Twelve o'Clock a.m.